3 ms·

Not sure why you're getting downvotes, it's a legitimate question. There are different kinds of adversary. A traditional tactic in politics is to find someone

Not sure why you're getting downvotes, it's a legitimate question. There are different kinds of adversary. A traditional tactic in politics is to find someone to blame. Trump blames immigrants, Muslims and China. He translated this into economic action by putting tarrifs on Chinese goods. (Tarrifs are a terrible idea, but one of the few things the president can do unilaterally.) Thanks to his years of anti-chinese rhetoric, I think there's a substantial number of people who gave drunk that kool-aid and see China as adversarial. Geopolitically, China is investing heavily in influence. There are lots of programs in other countries (especially Africa and Asia) where they are fostering trade and building infrastructure. This comes largely at the expense of US influence. Militarily they are growing, and are one of the few countries which could inflict serious losses on American forces. They wouldn't win (yet) but the American public has less appetite for high losses than the Chinese do. None of which stops them being huge trading partners of course. But the pendulum is swinging, and that distresses a significant number of US folk.

aurareturn 2y ago
> Thanks to his years of anti-chinese rhetoric, I think there's a substantial number of people who gave drunk that kool-aid and see China as adversarial. I agree. You actually see this on HN a lot too. Many here swear they didn’t become another “china bad” parrot because of the Trump years. But to me, the Trump years was the start of it all for most.
kelnos 2y ago
> Geopolitically, China is investing heavily in influence. There are lots of programs in other countries (especially Africa and Asia) where they are fostering trade and building infrastructure. This comes largely at the expense of US influence. So then what you are saying is, as an American, I should consider them an adversary. Unless I think that their influence on geopolitics is good (I don't) or that my own country losing influence is good (I don't).
- bruce511 2y ago
  It depends if you see it as a zero sum game. And indeed if you view others gain as your loss. It's possible to be rivals, without being adversaries. Plus, I think it's worth qualifying "adversary" there. If you're not a politician then what do you care about their political choices, and so on. If you grew up during the cold War you likely have the viewpoint of America being exceptional, being "the best" government, democracy, everything. This can be a hard position to let go of - to see that some things could be improved, that some countries do done things better. That the US can learn. The essence of the MAGA movement is to return USA to their global position as it was in the 50s, but the world has changed. And yes, China has things to teach us if we'll listen. Of course they are also far from perfect, and some lessons may do well in one context but not another.
corimaith 2y ago
>Thanks to his years of anti-chinese rhetoric, I think there's a substantial number of people who gave drunk that kool-aid and see China as adversarial. Trump did the right thing for the wrong reasons. It's not a "substantial number", it's the bi-partisan consensus across both parties. I find that the people who downplay the threat of China tend to rely on arguments of isolationism and assured implicit continuity of the values of the liberal international order, that they can continue to remain naval gazing at problems at home rather than realizing the world has changed. As the Chinese themselves argue, it's a "multipolar" world order. Their explicit ideological commitment to Schmittian realism, the rejection of hetegenerous plurality is a direct acknowledgment of fundamentally adversarial nature that governs the relationship between groups. That's what Wang Huning is saying, that's what they're talking about in Zhihu and Weibo. To reject that China is an adversary is to paradoxically deny what the Chinese (and much of the rest of the world) believes in favour of a overly myopic Eurocentric view. The ironic thing is that the CCP's reaction to American liberalism isn't wholly different from Trump or Thiel's postliberalism, really just different flavors of either Han or Christian neoconservatism.

aurareturn 2y ago

> Thanks to his years of anti-chinese rhetoric, I think there's a substantial number of people who gave drunk that kool-aid and see China as adversarial. I agree. You actually see this on HN a lot too. Many here swear they didn’t become another “china bad” parrot because of the Trump years. But to me, the Trump years was the start of it all for most.

kelnos 2y ago

> Geopolitically, China is investing heavily in influence. There are lots of programs in other countries (especially Africa and Asia) where they are fostering trade and building infrastructure. This comes largely at the expense of US influence. So then what you are saying is, as an American, I should consider them an adversary. Unless I think that their influence on geopolitics is good (I don't) or that my own country losing influence is good (I don't).

bruce511 2y ago
It depends if you see it as a zero sum game. And indeed if you view others gain as your loss. It's possible to be rivals, without being adversaries. Plus, I think it's worth qualifying "adversary" there. If you're not a politician then what do you care about their political choices, and so on. If you grew up during the cold War you likely have the viewpoint of America being exceptional, being "the best" government, democracy, everything. This can be a hard position to let go of - to see that some things could be improved, that some countries do done things better. That the US can learn. The essence of the MAGA movement is to return USA to their global position as it was in the 50s, but the world has changed. And yes, China has things to teach us if we'll listen. Of course they are also far from perfect, and some lessons may do well in one context but not another.

corimaith 2y ago

>Thanks to his years of anti-chinese rhetoric, I think there's a substantial number of people who gave drunk that kool-aid and see China as adversarial. Trump did the right thing for the wrong reasons. It's not a "substantial number", it's the bi-partisan consensus across both parties. I find that the people who downplay the threat of China tend to rely on arguments of isolationism and assured implicit continuity of the values of the liberal international order, that they can continue to remain naval gazing at problems at home rather than realizing the world has changed. As the Chinese themselves argue, it's a "multipolar" world order. Their explicit ideological commitment to Schmittian realism, the rejection of hetegenerous plurality is a direct acknowledgment of fundamentally adversarial nature that governs the relationship between groups. That's what Wang Huning is saying, that's what they're talking about in Zhihu and Weibo. To reject that China is an adversary is to paradoxically deny what the Chinese (and much of the rest of the world) believes in favour of a overly myopic Eurocentric view. The ironic thing is that the CCP's reaction to American liberalism isn't wholly different from Trump or Thiel's postliberalism, really just different flavors of either Han or Christian neoconservatism.