4 ms·
There's an element of revisionism to this perspective. It used to be thought that integration with the global economy would gradually bring more alignment with
by barrkel 6mo ago
There's an element of revisionism to this perspective. It used to be thought that integration with the global economy would gradually bring more alignment with Western values as well.
The ideas was that a rising middle class would demand more say in running the country. That elites would need to become accountable to the people, ideally via democracy. That geopolitical competition would be positive sum.
- spongebobstoes 6mo agoI don't see these ideas too much anymore. I wonder if it's because America doesn't seem to hold elites accountable to the people even still, China has westernized a lot over the last 20 years, both in quality of life and in social values regardless of values, offshoring valuable skills is a way to bring about more equality, but not a way to ensure American dominance I don't know that American dominance is a good thing
- barrkel 6mo agoHegemony is great for peace, but I think it inevitably turns into a kind of imperialism, even when well-intentioned.
- zenapollo 6mo agoThat idea was minorly present during Clinton and Bush, by the time Obama was in office I think it was clear that was never going to happen. The book covers the period from 2016 on, so long after that neocon dream.
- physicles 6mo agoThe idea lingered for longer than that. China under Hu Jintao wasn’t exactly friendly to the west, but it was Xi who really set China on its present course to build a multi-polar world, make real noise about reunification with Taiwan, etc. This new direction didn’t become clear to both sides of the aisle in the US until a year or two into Xi’s tenure. If someone else other than Xi had been chosen, we would likely have a very different China today.