Blogs and Stories
China's Upper Hand
Obama faces a new reality as he tries to reengage Beijing: from global warming to currency, Peter Beinart says the days when the U.S. can make demands of China are over. Plus, view our gallery.
To hear the Obama administration tell it, the problem with American foreign policy towards China is that we haven’t been paying enough attention. In the weeks and months leading up to the President’s arrival in Beijing, a bevy of administration officials implied that the Bush administration had become so preoccupied with the Middle East that it gave China free reign to expand its influence in Asia. Now, by sending Obama to the continent in his first year—after sending Hillary Clinton there on her first foreign trip—Team Obama is trying to signal that America is back in the game.
Click Image Below to View Our Gallery
But here’s the irony: the Bush administration’s policy towards China wasn’t that bad—precisely because they didn’t pay that much attention. Before September 11, 2001, the Weekly Standard crowd had been all set to make the Middle Kingdom the next evil empire. When a U.S. spy plane went down over Chinese soil during Bush’s first months in office, Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan—with apparent support from Dick Cheney—began talking darkly about a new cold war. President Bush even ditched America’s long-standing policy of not explicitly pledging to defend Taiwan, a policy designed to prevent Taipei from declaring independence and thus sparking World War III. Before 9/11, the Bush hawks—and large chunks of the American right—were looking for an enemy. Had Mohammed Atta and company not intervened, Beijing might well have been it.
• PEN ALERT: Free Liu XiaoboSo when Obama administration officials say America needs to start paying more attention to China, they’re not talking about the American right. It’s only because the right’s attentions were elsewhere, in fact, that U.S.-Chinese relations—the relations upon which global security and prosperity depend—have remained so calm. And they’re not really talking about the American left either. Liberals don’t want to confront Beijing militarily, but many do want to confront it economically. Back during the Clinton years, the activist left mostly opposed “most favored nation” trading status for Beijing and demanded restrictions on Chinese goods until its government improved workers’ rights and environmental protection. Today, the left is also unhappy about China’s devalued currency, which makes its exports artificially cheap. The only thing keeping liberals from declaring trade war on China now is that China isn’t high on their priority list: health care, global warming, card-check, Afghanistan and various other issues all come first.
Herein lies Team Obama’s problem: They want to pay more attention to China. But the result of all their attention is likely to be arrangements that codify China’s newfound economic and political power. From global warming to currency levels to human rights, the days when the U.S. could make demands of Beijing are over—we can bargain all we want, but at the end of the day, we know and they know that they are our bank. When Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg recently said that the catchphrase of U.S.-Chinese relations should be “strategic reassurance,” hawks indignantly asked what we had to reassure them about. Steinberg was too polite to say, but the answer is pretty obvious: we need to reassure them that America is a still a good investment. When China stops believing that, it’s going to be a very sad day in Mudville.
So it’s all well and good for the Obama administration to pay more attention to China. But the more attention the activist left and right pays, the harder it will be for Team Obama to come to terms with the new limits of American power. Try convincing the tea-bag crowd that the U.S. should cut its greenhouse gasses more than China does. Or try convincing the AFL-CIO that we can’t really retaliate against Chinese protectionism with protectionism of our own. Precisely because Americans haven’t been paying much attention to China, they haven’t fully acknowledged the shift in the balance of power between Washington and Beijing. The more the Obama administration calls attention to that shift, the more abuse it is likely to take.
As a government, the Obama administration seems ready for a relationship of equals with China. But as a people, Americans have barely begun to come to terms with what that means. I’m all for James Steinberg paying more attention to China. But what happens when Glenn Beck starts paying attention, too?
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is a professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
For More of The Daily Beast, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
The Pure Greed of Obama's Phony Health-Care Reform
Michael Moore is an Academy Award-winning filmmaker and author. He directed and produced Roger & Me, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, and Sicko. He has also written seven books, most recently, Mike’s Election Guide 2008.
Look Who's Irish!
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Edwards Sex Tape Details
Investigative journalist and syndicated columnist Diane Dimond has covered the Michael Jackson story since 1993 when she first broke the news that the King of Pop was under investigation for child molestation. She is author of the book, Be Careful Who You Love—Inside the Michael Jackson Case. She lives in New York with her husband, broadcast journalist Michael Schoen.
Democrats, Forever Changed
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, will be published by HarperCollins in June. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
Obama Gets His Mojo Back
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, will be published by HarperCollins in June. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
What Iraq Costs Us
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, will be published by HarperCollins in June. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
crypto
Looking elsewhere in this administration if you read a bible take the King James version and turn to Psalm 109:8. You may be surprised.
picopallasi
what the hell.
Badger1492
This is an example of people quote bible verses out of context thinking that speaks with some kind of authority rather than offer thoughful opinions of their own.
reagen
One could only hope!!
roba2257
So what is your interpretation of the correlation with this psalm and this the story .
SonofAsaph
As the Proverb says: "The borrower is a slave to the lender!" We need to control spending in Washington and pay down the debt we owe to China and stop printing more money which will further devalue our currency. This is why!
gameon
I wonder if all the men and boys who died in World War ll would like Obama's subserviant bowing.I wonder if this is something they would have given their lives for.I think not.
We're a nation thats become dependent upon oil dictators and communist regimes.Of course Obama's willing to embarass himself and the country,he needs the Asians to buy our debt.China and Japan are our landlords ,this sucks.You gotta have respect for the Japanese,they went from a totally devastated country to controlling Presidents like puppets in a mere sixty years.Americans have become soft and the world is taking advantage of it.
crypto
Wish the president luck: King James version Psalm 109:8.
BigBadWolf
Take your looney tune bible and shove it up your uneducated @$$. President Obama will be around for 2 terms, and then Hillary will take over for another 8 years. Get over it, the conservative movement in America is no longer relevant.
everydaydrew
Mr. Big wanna be bad wolf let me tell you something. Obama will not serve 2 terms, Hillary her thighness will never be president and calling the bible names like that will surely cast you into hell for eternity. You can think like a modern day person but never forget where we came from....GOD made you and He listens to your words and sees all your actions. You may laugh at me but let me tell you, it's no laughing matter.
madmilker
remember....BigBadWolf....America wusn't built on the conservative movement and for the past 47 years with all those jack@sses and elephants spendin the American taxpayers dollars like the printing presses of the Treasury would never run out off paper....have come to tat fork in the road which reads jus like a quote from "The Flow of Trade in a Global Economy" by Lance Winslow...."Now let us look at Wal-Mart again; you buy a product there, 6% goes to the employees, 10-18% is profit to the company, 25% goes to other costs and 50% goes to re-stock or the cost of goods sold. Of the 50% about 20-25% goes to China, a guess, but you get the point. Now then, how long will it take at 433 Billion dollars at year for China to have all of our money, leaving no money flow for us to circulate? At a 17 Trillion dollar economy less than 40-years minus the 1/6 they buy from us. Some say that if we keep putting money into our economy, it would take forever, but if we do not then eventually all the money flow will go. If China buys our debt then eventually they own us, no need to worry about a war, they are buying America, due in part to our own mismanaged trade, so whose fault is that? Not necessarily China, as they are doing what's in the best interests, and we should make sure that trade is not only free, but fair too."
Tis ain't about conservative or liberal....it's bout DEBT.
America is $57 TRILLION in DEBT and the United States of America government is sitting on over $13 TRILLION of Debt....
which means it has come to the turnips in D. C. having to kiss the @ss of the world tat is holding all those IOU's tat your government has squandered on crap with no George Washington's to pay for it...
You can't have a strong country if you send all your currency to a foreign land....George can only help you if he stays in the 57...oops! 50 states...and before you tell anyone to shove tat Bible....you had better read George Washington's farewell address back in 1796 tat wus never spoken by him. Have a nice day and God Bless!
Oh! spend a little time on Michael Hodges "Grandfather Economic Report."
Realize
you will have to answer for that one and I wouldn't wanna be you when that happens
IslandX
Its ok........thats what dreams are made of!!
LBalan
Yeah? R U sure BigBadWolf? Watch, see and learn from what will happen in 2010 after elections! ...then talk about the conservative movement in America! ...if I were you I'd get off the cool-aid!
SonofAsaph
Amen to that!
poritikus
leave the holy book out of it. love him or hate him, Barry is around for 4 years(at least) dude. but wat cld he do, half of America's currency was in China wen he got into power. Is it politics or business strategies needed here? I guess u miss uncle George, crypto
picopallasi
You know what would be great? government stooges getting out of any and all economic relations with China. How about we let actual business make decisions about business with the Chinese for a change. It's one thing to have government diplomacy, but please Washington. Please stop making stupid economic policies. Please?
Chuckv
Picopallasi is one of those for whom the free market is a religious faith. No need to look at facts. Get government out of whatever, and everything will be fine--perfect even. All government economic policies are stupid because they are government economic polices. The only good one is none at all.
American businesses manufacture in China because it is cheaper than making it here. But why is it cheaper?
" Despite huge trade surpluses and the desire of many investors to buy into this fast-growing economy - forces that should have strengthened the renminbi, China's currency - Chinese authorities have kept that currency persistently weak. They've done this mainly by trading renminbi for dollars, which they have accumulated in vast quantities." This is from Paul Krugman's column (NY Times 11/16/09).
Business cannot solve a problem with the Chinese government. It can't even try. Any business that transferred manufacturing to the U.S. or even another Asian country would be at a competitive disadvantage.
picopallasi
Yeah hi, religious faith? perhaps I should have religious faith in an incompetent government. And why refer to me in 3rd person? I'm right here.
No, free market doesn't offer a utopia but it sure as hell beats a strangled market. History and Praxeology are pretty crystal clear on this.
Quoting a Keynesian like Krugman? Even though Keynesian policies brought us economic collapse. Quote me a real economist like Bastiat or Mises. Or maybe someone at least pro economic freedom like.. I dunno.. Jefferson.
Georealist
Of course..Chuckv doesn't have any of this right...and Paul Krugman is pulling someones chain when he suggests its currency value that has made the critical difference. The reason businesses move overseas? The government subsidizes it! They receive all the tax breaks that they'd get if they had that shoe factory in New Jersey...without a lot of regulatory interference. When they ship all this Chinese made stuff back to the US..they get a wonderful infrastructure free ride!
It's interesting that the Chinese should be criticized for keeping the remnibi low...checked out the worldwide competitive value of the dollar lately?? We still run huge trade deficits because it's NOT solely a function of currency values. One can believe in the practicality of free markets without religious zealotry...I'd clap that little noose around the neck of liberals who believe that every problem is simply a Bill and a Subsidy away from being solved.
LBalan
One caveat: our government has not proved in a while that they're effective in what they do, so, shaping economic policy leaves me wanting. I'd consider them leaving the policy alone and just raise tariffs and taxes on Chines products to such levels that the Chinese might take notice! Then, bargain for fairness! In the mean time, our beloved government might be recovering some of the deficit from the $-s it makes from tariffs/tax increases! Let's not forget that China CANNOT afford to let us fall as they've invested too much in US and they stand to loose too much! We can use that to our advantage!
LBalan
That's worth trying, however, there's no question that the Chinese do NOT play fair! So, when 2 parties engage in economic ties, and one plays fair (or fairer) while the other doesn't, the one that plays fair more often than not looses!
eurydice9276
It's not really all that one-sided. China depends on our markets and is locked into the dollar. That's the bet they chose to make in order to become an economic powerhouse. But now they can't get out of that bet without hurting themselves - their only way out is for the US economy to recover.
As for our waning influence with the Chinese government - how long ago was it when we actually had influence? Maybe when China didn't have much of an economy and we could threaten them with sanctions or bribe them with the prospect of trade. But that's been over for quite a while.
devilsadvocate
China was locked into the dollar, but it is breaking free from that. As net savers, the Chinese people will soon be able to buy their own products produced in China without relying on the US to purchase those exports. At that point they can quit buying US debt (despite that we desperately need them to keep buying it), unpegging their currency. The yuans people saved will only rise in value vs the dollar. It would be detrimental to them to stop buying US treasuries, but at some point they'll realize that writing off $1 trillion is a better alternative to loaning $10 trillion more to us in the future, only to risk that not getting paid back.
eurydice9276
China isn't loaning us money - it earned dollars through trade (a giant trade imbalance, BTW) and amassed a giant foreign currency reserve, which it decided to keep in dollars so that its own currency and products would stay relatively cheap. China had to invest those dollars, which it did in stocks, real estate, mortgages and US treasury securities. We decided to use the money from the treasury sales to fund our various deficit-busting enterprises. Our desire to fund some wars and their desire to hoard dollars seemed mutually beneficial until people woke up to smell the coffee.
The Chinese people will be able to buy their own products when they start sharing in the benefits of China's enormous trade surplus (which they have not) and when the Chinese government focuses on development of its domestic economy (which it has been slow to do). A rise in the yuan vs the dollar (which the Chinese government doesn't want) will only help the Chinese people if they want to buy products imported from the US (which the Chinese government limits).
The Chinese government can't "write-off" $1 trillion in treasury securities, it can only sell them, and why should it? That would only undermine the value of its other investments in the US. However, that balance can be reduced significantly if it opened up its markets more fully to US products - then we'd get the dollars back and retire the securities. And there's no way they can "lend" us $10 trillion dollars in the future unless they come up with $10 trillion dollars from somewhere first.
devilsadvocate
Not loaning us money? Who is the largest purchaser or US treasuries? We are borrowing from them to fund our budget deficit. We have to.
The Chinese don't want a rise in the yuan vs. the dollar, this is true. But they're gradually finding more avenues of keepting the yuan pegged, than just through US debt.
Write off was just a slang term. Certainly China would suffer reprucussions if they stopped buying our debt, due to the large amount of it they already own. I did not mean 10 trillion at one point in time, but rather gradually over the course of time. At some point they will realize (and maybe they already have) that we won't have the ability to pay them back. They can use other avenues to keep their currency pegged, which they've already begun to do, and simply stop loaning money to the US and stop putting that money at risk of repayment.
LBalan
...doubt that the majority of Chines will be able to do that buying any time soon! Chinese products may seem cheap to us because the dollar appears strong relatively speaking to their currency! But the vast majority of Chinese population doesn't make $-s for a living and doesn't make much of their currency either! There are indeed plenty of places in China that might not even have electricity, let alone buying a car, even a cheap car! So they still depend on us, and will depend for, who knows, 10-20 years!?
cryptblade
quite right - the US never had any influence over China. Obama is foolish to think China will listen. China is powerful - and they will push for THEIR way and be able to back it up. While they will likely not take military action, they can fully commit if they need to.
If you look at how China and Russia work, they are the new powers of the world, not the US. In Asia, the US can only serve as a tempering effect between Japan/South Korea and North Korea. China has some dealings with NK, but clearly, China has moved significantly away from NK's brand of Communism.
The bottom line is this: China believes itself to be a power, it believes in its own Manifest Destiny. The attitude is "what's mine is mine, what's yours is mine" - that is why they are so hot tempered with Tibet and Taiwan. That is also why Russia is so powerful and can hold on to Chechnya and invade Georgia and the world can do nothing.
Funny that these two former communist nations (china is technically communist but not in the economic sense, only the politburo and party-system) but how they handle things is decisively and world opinion be damned. And guess what? While the world may say -well, we don't like it- but despite human rights abuses in China - is anyone shying from China? Despite how hairy things get with Russia, can anyone ignore Russia as an economic powerhouse?
Yet the US is waning with celerity. Too much debt, a grovelling president who can only talk tough with US political opponents but grovels to the rest of the world.
I used to be fiercely proud to be American - especially as an immigrant. Now I am regretful that I ever cared.
helton2567
The USA is living in a paralel universe and does not accept the fact that the world is changing ...the great mistake US is making is to UNDERESTIMATE CHINA ... CHINA IS PREDICTED TO HAVE A 50 TRILLION $ dollars GDP by ..2025 against US 25 trillion...
Johnnyappleseed
How do you say grovelling in mandarin?
Georealist
Obama.....I believe it's Swahili for "looking stupid with a smile."
jessie111
I think you got Obama confused with Bush...lol
IslandX
Banak!!!
niccidanella
When you owe a bank $5000 dollars, they own you. When you owe a bank, $500 billion /- dollars.......you own the bank. Enough said, don't you think?
mikehenriquez
GREAT COMMENT!! that is whata a great comment should be: short, intelligent, simple and straight to the point. i will use your comment if you allow me to. thanks.
calhar
You got it right niccidanella.
Georealist
A very interesting statement was made this weekend by Liu Mingkang..China's top Bank Official..he's the one who ends up handling much of those US $ that come in from trade. He criticized the US for having a weak currency and promoting stock and property speculation thru the carry trade. The carry trade is simply borrowing a low interest rate currency (the US $!) and translating it into another currency for investment. This is NOT some haphazard statement..it's a direct shot at Obama that clearly says..
"If you come to China to criticize we are ready."
This trip won't go well. No one in the world outside fantasyland USA takes this man seriously! The Chinese and the US are in a full blown mutually dependent relationship..though it seems the Chinese have the ultimate upper hand. Cutting back on bond purchases would force rates up..even if the Fed stepped in to take on the debt. Higher rates would knock the current PHONEY recovery back to March 2009...remember that happy month? IF that happens Obamas (and the Democrats in general) will suffer huge drops in the popularity polls.
Bottom line..the Community Organizer is about to get a lesson in Real Politic from the Chinese..he has very few if any chip to play to get them to support an Iranian gasoline boycott...but will probably get that much as a bone..just to keep the economic peace. Iran will soon cave and the idea that China will sneak them fuel because of a few nickle and dime arrangements will fall away.
crypto
I think you're right on georealist. Not many folks on here understand where we are with the rest of the world. China, for what ever you may think of them, are realist. They are survivors. Look back from where they came. Our '29 depression was a way of life for the Chinese for lifetimes. They determined they would survive in spite of war and poverty. And they have. Now they will not accept anything that attempts to turn them around. Not even the precious human rights. You will do as directed if you are to live in China, you will do as directed if you are to deal with China. Obama hasn't a chance of coming away with anything unless he is willing to give more. And frankly we don't have any more. And what's more important they know it.
Dreamer4Ever
Oh sheesh, ANOTHER low-blow at "Community Organizer".....FFS people, organizing COMMUNITIES was nothing to mock during the campaign and still isn't.
"Community Organizer." "Berry." "Beloved Leader." "BHO." I am sick to death of it and and since my health insurance doesn't cover it, is it really too much to ask that you at least refer to the President of the United States by his PROPER NAME?
daboys12
"His PROPER NAME?" No where written does it require citizens to call him Mr President, or President Obama!!! Those are titles of respect, and if you have no respect for him(or he hasn't earned repect), why should he be called by those titles.
Me for one, if I ever met The Obamas, I would call him Mr. Obama and I would completely ignore the "First Wench"!!
Respect is earned not freely given, and BHO has not earned it!!!!
cryptblade
yes it is too much to ask, so keep dreaming.
LBalan
...hey, not to worry! The new health reform being proposed might cover your condition as well! Hehehhh... though, I do agree with you in principle about the decency to be awarded to the president...
IslandX
Come on....be positive. Obama will just sweet mouth the Chinese as he did to the millions of Americans who voted for him. So dont worry...be happy!!!
LBalan
There is something that this administration can do but will never do: warn the Chinese that if they don't listen carefully, we'll drop the dollar so far down that it'll make them, the Chinese, cringe! Meanwhile, lots of the other countries around will find our products suddenly attractive, tourism to USA will increase sever times fold, and so on and so forth... so, we can still play hard ball if we want to! It takes guts to do that though and our guy doesn't appear to have it or to have to stomach for it anyway!
flavor13
Will someone please give Pete Beinart a gig on Fox News so we don't have to listen to him anymore? I hear Hannity is looking for a new stooge.
This user is no longer registered.
Monk66
The bible was written 1600 years ago.
Any line you take from it and try to put it into today's world is taking it out of context.
and evil modern christians = evangelicals
Jinglebob
Monk66. You need to brush up on your "Bible" if you engage in post like the above. Actually the "Bible," was the Hebrew Bible from where we get Psalms. Been around for thosands of years and was passed down in story form before written in Hebrew and Greek. Just a little education for you.
drmich
Monk66:
Just because someone calls themself a christian does not mean that they are one. The Bible outlines certain results of becoming a Christian that ARE visible if the person is truly a christian. Sadly many who claim to be are not.
And the date the Bible was written is irrelevant. I emplore you to earnestly study it... It is for a fact the most historically accurate book ever written. There are many people who have devoted their lives to disprove it (on the basis of historical accounts) only to conclude that they labored in vain.
You may want to glance through the Proverbs, any of them, and tell me how many of them do not apply today as they did in Ancient times. I've studied them thoroughly and they are spot on... Timeless.
Regards.
DesertRat87
Actually, if you read this passage, this is simply referring to someone who returns evil for good. I don't think this passage was ever meant to refer to conservatives or liberals or progressives, or Bush or Obama at all, unless they are returning evil for good. It's king David's prayer to the Lord against someone who was doing it to him. The Lord looks on the heart, whether it is evil or good, not on your party affiliation. So I seriously doubt that this passage is referring either to Obama, or to his more conservative predecessor.
gameon
Why are modern christians evil. If they are evil, why do they give more to charity than non-christians?
Left-wing extremists calling right-wing extremists evil is what I call silly.
sophia5
" Peter Beinart says the days when the U.S. can make demands of China are over. "
Hasn't China's growth come at the expense of the American Factory, and American Worker ?
Aren't many of those factories in China in REALITY, American Based, and if so what would China's " economy "
stand on if we pulled all those American factories out from under them ?
Johnnyappleseed
Actually the factories in China are european based, German, French Belgium to name a few.
They also have labor problems.
Doesn't make very good case for the world market concept.
cryptblade
the initial phase of american investment was american funded factories. some large corporations are able to do that these days, but cutting through the bureaucracy takes a long time. however, connected business ppl, often those int he Communist party, are the ones building new factories and inviting foreign businesses to outsource manufacturing to china.
And before you cry about American companies outsourcing to China and blaming big corporations, know this: MANY US small businesses outsource to China to keep costs down and be competitive in the market place.
neverlate
As someone who had lived in Asia for three years and visits on a yearly basis I find that I am extremely impressed with the level of wealth; at least in the major cities. Unfortunately, with the devaluation of the dollar, I now know how someone from a third world country feels when they visit a wealthy country.
ChanRobt
China doesn't have any "upper hand". Sheneeds us at least as much as we need her because we're the biggest market for Chinese goods.
If China squeezes us, she'll be squeezing herself even harder.
Meanwhile, that $800 million in our bonds China is sitting on could evaporate in a second. Her wealth is a very thin crust. Beneath lies a large, poor, somewhat restive population which the leaders must always keep a big lid on.
Don't let the glitter of the coastal cities blind you to the larger truth.
socagirl1
China has been expanding allover the world and gaing power over the US for the pass eight years because the Bush adm was to busy destroying the economy throughtout the world because of greed and now everyone wants to blame everything on OBAMA
Subotai
I agree with you somewhat. The coastal cities have always been sites of wealth and prestige. Journey into the heartland and you will find the poor farmer/worker that has always existed in the Middle Kingdom. China exists in a Dynastic Cycle, and although this time around is impressive, like all its empires, this too will pass.
IslandX
China is the sleeping lion waiting to devour the whole world!!!
ZevonLives
Dagnabbit. If not for that rascally 9-11, the Bush Administration wouldn't have used the so-called "War on Terror" to intentionally distract the American public from the most unsustainable and unbalanced trading-relationship in world history (that only benefited Wal-Mart and Wall Street CEO's, while single-handedly putting the final-nail in the coffin of the US manufacturing-base).
Way to position yourselves for 2012, G.O.P. I'm sure someone will swallow that line-of-thinking.
But IF Nixon's saving grace was the opening to China-- which rescued their Communist dictatorship from collapsing like the Soviet's did-- won't there have to be some political backtracking on that?
You know, like the sales-job the Kissinger Group sold America when lobbying the one-shade-less-corporatist Democratic Party leadership to enthusiastically sign on to the severing of once-annual most-favored nation (M.F.N.) trading-status reviews for the so-called "People's Republic."
Remember how enhanced trade would supposedly bring so much enhanced openness and craving for democratic freedoms among the Hans? That Clinton-era justification was right before US companies raced each other to sell the Chinese all the net-censoring-and-monitoring software we could provide them.
And we wonder why they don't embrace our own model (even as we know how the C.C.P. leaders must scorn and laugh at our constant habit of undermining long-range national prerogatives for the limited short-term profits of the few)?
Democracy, free-speech and all that good-stuff mattered when it was the "evil empire" of the Soviet Union as our nemesis.
But due to the political-correctness of our partly race-based post-Vietnam-syndrome and, most importantly, billions in greased-palms, we systematically looked the other-way when it came to China (thus enabling their rise and our own fall).
Funny how all that talk of "democracy promotion" among the Mad Men of the 50's-- whom Frank Luntz and Roger Ailes were heirs to-- never transferred over to the Communist Dictatorship arming the Vietcong from China (once those canny re-branders of that generational struggle for "freedom" realized how willing and lucrative Chinese sweat-shops and factories could be to their profit-margins).
Too bad there's not a third-party that wasn't complicit in this most one-sided three-decade-long reversal of power (that was accomplished without a single shot being fired).
Initially foregoing all but the race for the White House, perhaps a modern-day charismatic "Bull Moose"-type party" could be stiched together based on what unites us (among those still capable of putting patriotism before personal-or-partisan gain)?
Since the G.O.P. and Democrats have gamed the system so there is seemingly nowhere else to turn, what would happen if an amorphous coalition of credible and non-corporatist thinkers like Paul Volcker, Garry Wills, David Brooks, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders and Bill Maher could be called upon to form an historically-unprecedented political restructuring behind a Presidential candidate, like George Washington, who'd be capable of temporarily uniting disparate voices?
Seemingly-powerless, but not hopeless, citizens who can already see how the status-quo will inevitably play-out if we don't engage in the short-term pain of a withdrawl from more Chinese debt-financing (in our out-of-proportion fear of higher interest-rates... that are already way lower than they were in the early 90s).
For kicking that can down the road only enables more Chinese protectionism of their state-controlled industries and the continued pegging/manipulation of their currency (to our long-term detriment).
Only a new polity that doesn't have to worry about initially running candidates for House and Senate may boldly crack the partisan blame-game that only succeeds in shifting us voters from party-to-party (while doing nothing to take on the seemingly-intransigent problems like The Drug War/Prison-Industrial Complex; the Wall Street behemoths that must be broken up and/or forced under new Glass-Steagall divisions; the unmonitored government spying of its own citizens; the stranglehold of four-to-five massive media companies; the lack of accountability of the Federal Reserve and the unmitigated disaster that private mercenary armies are creating by evading Congressional limits on the size, scope and cost of our forces in the Middle East).
Imagine how the Progressives, Libertarians, Independents and disaffected Democrats and Republicans would flock to the candidate who does more than make impressive speeches? Imagine their pride in explaining to their children how being given no real choices has forced them to think out-of-the-box and create a new alternative to the powers-that-be?
I don't care anymore if China becomes a democracy and I don't even view them as the enemy. That's not the point.
The point to consider is that our two-party system precludes long-range decision-making in favor of whatever makes the current party-in-power more-or-less favorable in the next easily-manipulated-to-the-lowest-common-denominator election.
That forces bolder thinkers off the stage in favor of short-term promise-makers (who can switch positions of power, through eternity, without anything ever being accomplished).
I don't even have anyone in mind to challenge Obama and the next Republican candidate in the 2012 Presidential election (or maybe it would be preferable to try for 2016 instead?).
But I think that some informal collection of some of the above names, and many more, would at least force the two parties to stop taking the American public for granted (or constantly capitulating to how timid, short-sighted and selfish they all assume all of us are).
Leadership calls for uplifting more than just hopes. It calls for uplifting the discussion, without ruling out threats to the sacred-cows that are usually thought to be untouchable third-rails.
Hey, that's not a bad-name: The Third-Rail Party. Capable of emulating the Chinese in just one respect: the ability for long-range planning that isn't beholden to special-interests of the every-two-years Congressional elections (that serve to keep the brightest and boldest off the stage).
For avoiding short-term pain and bolder policy-initiatives isn't a luxury we can afford any longer.
Now you can commence to making fun of how naive I sound or how I haven't given Obama enough of an opportunity. The latter point may indeed be true, but I just wanted to get it off my long-winded chest.
So I'm sorry for the digressions and suggestions. But life is short, you know. And so am I.
Gort51
Well, ZevonLives, you're right about being "long-winded", but that's OK when you have a lot to say. Most people won't have the patience to read your entire post (as I almost didn't), thinking "someone that long-winded is probably a looney-tunes from the right or left"; which is a shame, because most of what you have to say is "spot-on".
I think you are absolutely correct in your assessment of our current situation. My only disagreement is with the short shrift you have given Mr. Obama; I think not enough time has passed to pass judgement on his leadership. As time passes, it may turn out that you are correct in that assessment also, in which case I would also come to agree with you on that. For the sake of the country, I hope that your current assessment of him is wrong. We'll see.
Your proposed solution would probably solve the problem, except for one apparently insurmountable obstacle; the low quality of the american electorate. While a large segment of american voters are intelligent and capable of thinking logically, a depressingly large number are ignorant, indoctrinated into extreme right or left wing ideology, and unwilling to acknowledge any facts that contradict their expressed beliefs. Consider Sarah Palin and Ralph Nader, or Fox News and "The Nation".
All of which once again proves that variously attributed observation; people generally get the government they deserve.
LBalan
Here's the million dollar question: where it that charismatic, competent, patriotic leader, fiscally conservative and socially moderate liberal, who can get into those shoes, and will consider getting out there under the fire, and try to turn this country around? Haven't seen him/her! Let's not forget that our children are forged from the cookie cutters of our Universities that have been for the most part hijacked by the liberal and ultra-liberal types! That's doesn't help much 'cause our children are NOT encouraged to think out of the box anymore! If the right leader appears, then yeah, the above can come to pass!
hockeydog
Gort & Zevon - keep up the good commentary.
MCrothers
Interesting what if . . . because I promised that today would be one of hope rather than despair, I will light a candle to your third rail idea. Is this not just another form of Federalism? Albeit with a group of seemingly 'outsider' bureaucrats with an aversion to two party polemics? Less voice, more reason?
ImNoPUNK
First reports out of China reveal that it was an interesting initial meeting between the Chinese Premier and President Obama. Upon greeting the Chinese Premier in The Great Hall, the U.S. President warmly extended his hand and asked if he'd ever shaken the hand of a black man. The Premier's Chinese interpreter translated the question to the Chinese Premier who heartily laughed then responded. The Chinese interpreter looked puzzled and initially didn't respond to the U.S. President whereupon the President Obama asked, "What did he say?".
The interpreter sheepishly replied, the Chinese Premier said, "Mr. Kettle is pleased to meet you, Mr. Pot!"
koyaanisqatsi
Not even I believe that "that America is a still a good investment." I'd advise anyone and any country to decouple their investments and their economies from the U.S. to the greatest extent possible. The U.S. is a bad deal. Even now, our financial geniuses are trying to further enrich themselves at the expense of the American people. Some things never change.
ChanRobt (| | 2:47 pm, Nov 16, 2009) notes with his statement "Don't let the glitter of the coastal cities blind you to the larger truth." This applies to a greater extent to the U.S. with each passing day, as average Americans of all ethnicities fall further behind.
America, esp. the GOP and free market nitwits, and its politicians and economists can "shove it" AFAIC. It may be time for this American-born U.S. citizen to bail out.
cryptblade
GOP nitwits? who's ACTUALLY decoupling America? Get it straight - it's the Democrats and their corrupt wall street financiers like that corrupt Raj whatshisname arrested for insider trading. Financiers like him funded, lavishly, the DNC coffers. And it's the DNC and their protectionist, union-loving, tax-everything that moves (thank you Hilary Clinton) platform that has gotten us here.
ZevonLives
What protectionism do you speak of? The symbolic two products that were recently "protected" in response to China's state-sponsored protection of nearly everything? You know, the tire-duties that got them so angry that humorous asides about the folly of limiting their import of chicken's feet were written in jest.
The only thing your predictable Democratic harangue proved was Gort's point about the danger's of over-rating the national-conversation (i.e. we get the government we deserve).
I know every college economic textbook immediately teaches the folly of protectionism. But even the Chinese don't privately believe that the miniscule counter-moves the Obama Administration recently delivered were tantamount to starting a trade-war.
For when someone else uses the power of the state to "sponsor" certain industries-- like steel mining and production, most manufacturing and the hoarding of rare-earth minerals-- belatedly considering a response is clearly not "protectionism."
The sin of protectionism should first be applied to who applies it first.
But how about some personal disclosure? How many people who share your view have work that profits from an antagonistic relationship with unions and a lucrative one with overseas manufacturing (that needn't be concerned with regulations or oversight on worker-safety, health-care or environmental-rules)?
Globalization is mostly inevitable. But unfair trade-practices by a country now demanding to be recognized as a "market economy"-- after breaking all of its prior promises to International Trade Organizations and the International Olympic Committee too-- is another thing entirely.
Or maybe you think that the fact China's reserves have gone from 1 percent of America's GDP to 12 percent of America's GDP, in only 8 years, is only a product of their ingenuity.
They may lead the world in producing green-technology for export-- what with over 90% of these irreplaceable rare-earth minerals-- but they are still building coal-fired power-plants every month.
What does that say about global consciousness vs private gain?
LBalan
Blaming the free markets always gets me! Who made the states the greatest country that graced the face of the earth by the time '50 and '60 came around? Certainly the free markets! One can certainly make the case that in the first half of 20th century there was a LOT less regulation than towards the end of it and into our days! The more the economic regulation increased the more we started loosing that edge! This country was as great as it was because our constitution and because of our freedoms that included free markets! Take that away and you take away the wind from the sails that move this country! capish koyaanisqatsi? You just need to go, live for few years in a country like Chiana or the former Soviet Union. I grantee that you'll be singing a very different tune upon return! Stop blaming the "free markets" for the current screw-up cause you don't know what you're talking about!
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.