JD Vance versus CNN:
Who's inciting and escalating violence?
The shitholification of Oakland:
Be careful what you say—cancel culture isn't right, but it cuts both ways:
Shailene Woodley, probably not a conservative Republican, retweeted one thing and got shit for it:
And a torrent of bad news about "The Acolyte":
READ THIS BEFORE COMMENTING!
All comments are subject to approval before they are published, so they will not appear immediately. Comments should be civil, relevant, and substantive. Anonymous comments are not allowed and will be unceremoniously deleted. For more on my comments policy, please see this entry on my other blog.
AND A NEW RULE (per this post): comments critical of Trump's lying must include criticism of Biden's or Kamala's or some prominent leftie's lying on a one-for-one basis! Failure to be balanced means your comment will not be published.
Compelling takedown of the self-contradicting, unthought-through codswallop that is Republican foreign policy here: https://www.ft.com/content/94003a58-a5eb-4406-a5a1-687d87b3fc4a Article title speaks for itself. Behind a paywall but well-advised blog viewers know what to do with archive.ph. If an obvious slob like Orban can pull the wool over Republican eyes, it starts to make a Harris look less necessarily apocalyptic.
ReplyDeleteHas it been a while since you commented? I've had other leftie (or at least anti-Trump) commenters like Brian and Daeguowl here for a while. Where have you been?
ReplyDeleteI think foreign policy has been a mess on both sides for a long time. Look at how things are right now on Biden's watch, with military conflicts sprouting everywhere. The senile old fart has undone the good of the Abraham Accords, and Putin took advantage of Biden's perceived weakness to go all-in on an invasion of Ukraine. I've never stated my own clear opinion on the Ukraine crisis, but I have noted that I have little sympathy for either side: Russia's invasion puts Russia fundamentally at fault for the current conflict (whose roots go back at least to the Obama administration), but Ukraine was also a thoroughly corrupt state before Russia ever invaded.
As for China policy, which your cited article focuses on: I totally agree that US foreign policy about China has been a confused mess for years, but I wouldn't place the blame entirely on Republicans. Part of the confusion stems from the US wanting to, but not quite having the balls to, step fully away from the old "one China" policy—to support Taiwan more openly. I will actually give Biden credit for flatly stating that, should the PRC attack Taiwan, America would step in to defend it. It's one of the few areas where I think Biden was totally right to draw a line in the sand, however much such a statement might have sent his lackeys scrambling to "walk back" his sentiment, just as they've walked back so many of his other utterances ("What he really meant was..."). And the Republicans certainly have a great deal of policy incoherence: on one hand, Republicans generally tend to be pro-business, and China represents a gigantic, irresistible market for American businesses. But politically, the US is—ostensibly, at least—against the PRC's CCP ideology. This makes things confusing because it sets the US both for and against China as a whole. I have been clear about my own stance on this point: on my blog (non-influential, I realize), I've been repeatedly calling for a full-on divorce from China and a pivot toward India, which is also full of smart, hard-working people (yeah, yeah, its government is corrupt, too). What this might mean practically, I have no clue (maybe a pivot to India could lead to slave labor like in China), but surely, it's got to be better than being entangled with the writhing, tentacular beast that is the PRC.
But as I said, this isn't an incoherence that belongs only to Republicans. Elon Musk, who until recently gave substantially more money to Democrats than to Republicans, has deep roots in China, where he's got at least two enormous Tesla facilities, one in Shanghai (manufacturing), and one in Xinjiang (exhibition space, I believe), a city that is constantly in the news for its Muslim concentration camps. Going back in time, Democrat Bill Clinton's China policy was aggressively pro-American investment (even though he wanted to keep American jobs in America), and you can bet China was screwing us over even then—with our knowledge. Clinton saw the dollar signs, too. Everyone does, which is why a complete divorce from China, despite its shitty products and the satanic Belt and Road Initiative (look at Sri Lanka), isn't in the cards anytime soon. Tesla's Shanghai "gigafactory" was finished in 2019, I think, on Trump's watch, but the planning and agreements for the factory had to have happened during the Obama administration. Musk was a Democrat-leaning American (and Canadian, and South African) until only recently; I bring him up as a good example of how Democrats and Republicans share blame for our incoherence regarding China.
So, no: an article that tries to make it seem as if all the blame falls entirely on the Republicans is disingenuous at best. The situation is much more complicated. Even a non-expert like me can see that.
Sorry. To clarify: Musk's recent shift rightward, meaning he's worn both a Democrat-ish label and a Republican-ish label, is what makes him a good example of both Democrats and Republicans having a confused stance toward China. What I should also have added, to drive home the point of the "confused stance," was that Musk claims to be pro-free speech when it comes to things like Twitter/X and other platforms, but his close involvement with speech-repressing China makes it hard for me to take his stance seriously.
ReplyDeleteAnd another sorry: I think I was thinking of a different Neil who used to comment here.
ReplyDeleteThe article makes the singular point that welcoming an opportunist snake in the nest like Orban shows up the opaque at best and utterly incoherent at worst thinking of Republican policy wonks and strategists, such as they are. Xi took in 3 destinations on his last trip to Europe: France, because it plays well with the Dior bag lovers on the Chinese mainland, Macron does servile very well, and you've at least got to fake-face to an old Euro power; then Serbia, to encourage its outlier pro-Russia core; and then Orban's Hungary, to offer him financial reassurances, one would guess, to keep up the division-sowing. Be worth a little thought time for the GOP to ponder on why.
ReplyDeleteAs for India, apart from their usefulness as a ballast in the Indo-Pacific, I wouldn't expect too much. You saw the hug Modi gave Putin and later behind closed doors the rumour is that he went on to do considerably more. It has been a fantasy of the west for some years now that India will throw its lot in with the good guys and they know that and love the speculative limelight, playing both sides. They anticipate the shift east in world power that Purin and Xi are actuating and won't fight it, solely concentrating on hedging for their own border interests.
It barely needs stating that with whey-faced, bleary-eyed types like Blinken and Sullivan in charge, the US will be seen as essentially weak, and unwilling to make that final leap into full-blown conflict, despite what Biden pledges when he doesn't cognitively grasp the implications of what he is saying. That makes it all the more important for their potential replacements to be crystal clear on where they stand. Orban is not a bridge for the conservative west to cross between Russia and China; he's a hand grenade to destroy what's left of any western resolve, if one were to believe in such a thing.
First para is a shame, by the way. Leftie? Bah! But if that's the level of chatter chatter, so be it. You Know I love you anyway.
No need for sorries. I remember that guy. Now he WAS a leftie
ReplyDeleteI think most US conservatives see Orban positively as a bulwark against the unheeded immigration of cultural minorities who, like in France with generations of Muslims, enter the country and refuse to assimilate. Conservatives probably don't see him any more deeply than that, and I personally haven't studied Orban that closely, either. (Feel free to educate me.) It's true that, as a matter of history, many countries take American largesse for granted and play us for suckers; China's among the worst offenders, but I'm open to the idea that Orban might be bad, too. Right now, though, and for the past four years, "Republican foreign policy" is not in the driver's seat, so this question only becomes relevant should we have a GOP-dominated Congress and Trump back in the Oval Orifice.
ReplyDeleteSome points from the article that need addressing:
For [US populists], the rise of China is a historic menace to be resisted at all turns.
The writer shouldn't conflate "US populists" with "Republicans," despite the mention of JD Vance. There is a huge split in the Republican party that runs along populist-versus-neocon lines. And as I wrote in my previous comment, it's not at all clear that either side, Rep or Dem, sees China purely as a menace: historically, both sides have also seen China as a huge business opportunity. I mean, I personally see China as a menace (just as I see Kamala as a menace, a Gollum'ed-up version of Biden—much more openly leftist). Centuries ago, ancient China was a source of great wisdom and high culture, but China since at least the 20th century has been little more than an ever-growing, metastasizing cancer.
Two of its strongest instincts — an aversion to China and a taste for strongmen, several of whom are pro-China — stand in hopeless conflict.
The taste for strongmen is found on both the left and the right. Look at the current US leftist cheering for Maduro, who just won reelection in Venezuela. Look at Obama's coddling of the Iranian regime (pallets of cash!?!?!). The list goes on. American administrations on both sides have had their heads up their asses, often for supposed reasons of realpolitik, but more likely just for reasons of cold, hard cash. Everyone is dirty.
In 2021, it was just about possible, at an extreme stretch, to be neutral or even obliging towards Russia while confronting China. But in the era of “no-limits” partnership between the two states? When the one reinforces the other diplomatically and materially?
I'll agree with this. The channel China Uncensored talks about this problem all the time, whether it was Trump in the driver's seat or Biden (who may or may not be driving).
And so we are left with the simplest, most bathetic conclusion. I don’t think Vance and his ilk are even aware of the contradiction in their worldview. They haven’t thought about it enough.
If Vance & Co. read the Financial Times, they might now be aware.
I say that semi-facetiously, but I still see the author as conflating stripes of Republican with each other, and no mention of Democrats, who are currently the more immediate concern. He should have gone for finer distinctions. But he's not wrong to think that American politicians, all the way up to Trump and Biden, have said and done some head-scratching things regarding how harsh to be about China, Russia, Eastern Europe, etc. They'll often rationalize it with pragmatism, and they'll say that continued economic/diplomatic ties are actually saving lives by avoiding war, but China is crystal clear, given its own rhetoric, that it's in a war with the United States, which it doesn't want merely to dethrone but to defeat thoroughly. The US probably won't find moral clarity until it finds itself in a shooting war.
Meanwhile, analysts would do well to make finer distinctions for their analyses to be taken more seriously.