Comment by godwinson__4-8

> China does not treat us as a partner any more than we do them.

I don't think this is accurate. What do you mean by this? What about the extent of trade between the two countries? It has dipped from peaks, but the story of Chinese growth and American wealth are intertwined. In what sense is this not a partnership? Because they stole some IP along the way? Or the access to their market comes with other costs? On balance it still works out for the average American, who enjoys cheap products. It's akin to the battle over Chinese AI. VC investors in the US would probably benefit from some kind of embargo against Chinese AI models. Would American consumers? It's the same sort of issue with Japan in the 80s, which is when Trump first really started talking about tariffs. Japanese vehicles are some of the most popular in the United States. The American consumer has benefitted from Japanese competition. Why can it not be the same with China? Because the Chinese government supports Chinese businesses? All countries do so. Who bailed out the American automakers? The American taxpayer. America worked in recent days to prop up the yen. Do you think this is a coincidence given the amount of US debt the Japanese hold? The Chinese also hold a large amount of American debt. Why are we not partners?

> we maintain the strongest military in the world when fully committed (Iran isn't even half-hearted, it started out as an unpopular war and nobody wants a land invasion)

This gets said a lot. The problem is why is America not fully committed? You can't really have it both ways. "We're so powerful when we commit" without acknowledging why you don't commit. Why does no one want a land invasion? If the American military is "the strongest military in the world when fully committed" what's the big deal? Commit and invade then if it's so easy.

We know the answer. A reasonable follow-up question then is what is the advantage of "the strongest military in the world when fully committed" if your society does not want to take on the cost of ever fully committing? Are you suggesting the United States is more likely to want to incur costs against powers like Russia or China than it is against Afghanistan or Iran? If Americans don't want to invade Iran, why would they want to break a Chinese blockade of Taiwan? So what good is it? One of the virtues of democracy is actually it is harder to declare war. This is why the imperial presidency was created. If you're familiar with US history you would know an overriding popular view was avoiding foreign wars. Including WWII. FDR couldn't really help in Europe as much as he wanted, because Americans weren't interested in sending their blood and treasure to die an ocean away, especially after WWI. He had to wait for the Pearl Harbor attack, which galvanized support overnight. Why does America no longer employ conscription? Because wars aren't popular. It's actually in my view a pretty disgusting "adaptation" that a democracy has created an all volunteer army. This is not in keeping with basic democratic ideals, going back to ancient greece. If a land of "all men created equal" goes to war, all should have to sacrifice. Instead we send mostly poor kids to have their legs blown off in Iraq while at the same time people in the oil or defense or finance industry get to print money for their children. Why are the elites so hated in America? It's not about wealth alone. I keep hearing about how powerful the US military is, but all I actually see is a string of military failures from Afghanistan, to Iraq, to now Iran. These are impoverished, backwards pariah states. Why would I conclude the United States would do better against a power remotely approaching a peer?

> our natural resources are plentiful

So are China's. It's why the "trade war" failed.

> Sure the Trumpers aren't going away, but they are fundamentally incapable of governing and have no real successor to Trump, who is fundamentally incapable of grooming a successor. They were politically irrelevant for the longest time, and only matter now because the establishment failed to maintain living standards.

This is an overly optimistic read. They were actually never "politically irrelevant". The faction of America they represent has always been relevant. It was merely the case that American elites could control them. Trump was never taken seriously by said elites, who repeated your sentiments pretty much verbatim. He proved them wrong. The information world we live in now is changing the nature of public discourse. Nothing could be of greater consequence in a democracy. Parties, and the public are not as easily controlled. What is going to reverse this trend? Just think about the information the average American had access to in the mid 20th century compared to now. Why would you look at the history of American politics and demagogues and conclude it will get better? How will living standards improve? Why is it inevitable that America will solve this? Seems like wishful thinking.

The invocation of 1919 Berlin as if this is some comfort is quite ironic. The saving grace of Trump is he really doesn't care about anything but himself, and so doesn't really believe in anything. You may not be so lucky the next time the Democrats choke away an election. The failures of 1919 Berlin would metastasize into another form of extremism in a nearby city that led to another failure in 1923. But then it was 1933. The history of this period tells us that many figures and people oscillated between "left" and "right" extremism as they worked to find an answer that resonated in a rapidly changing and destabilizing world. Hmm, much like the one we find ourselves in today. They've taken the White House twice now. The communists in Berlin in 1919 never tasted that sort of power. I'm not sure you're making the correct analogy. I'm also not sure I would celebrate the murder of German communists by proto-Nazis. Personally, a rather odd data point for you to single out as a reassuring one.

In any event, I am not sure why you are so confident that America is so immune to something approaching a similar fate. Germany was not some backwards society. This was the land of Kant and Hegel and Frege.

Just as the land of Washington, Jefferson and Madison found itself mired in fratricide within a few generations.

One doesn't have to get even halfway to such a 1933 outcome for things to get very bad. America has not been around for very long. Why so confident of such a short track record?

I simply suggest you not engage in hubris. Widen your imagination of the possible. And recognize we are all human. Citing some point about Mao or toilet paper is about as useful as bringing up Abu Ghraib or American slavery. The Chinese can also adapt if you haven't noticed. It's not Mao's party anymore.

What is the path for America's future? The world is getting smaller and more competitive. Your comfort in demographics might be warranted, but as it stands today there are over a billion people in China. Is the future for America better if the Chinese are our foes? I guess I just don't understand this constant drumbeat of conflict. We should not envy the progress of a billion people on the other side of the world. China doesn't setup bases in Mexico or Canada. It doesn't try to assert itself in the "Gulf of America". It doesn't support a separatist movement in Hawaii. Whose kids are going to die fighting China in the Pacific? Are you going to volunteer your kids? On what basis? A 21st century update to Wilsonian idealism? That which Americans already saw fail?

Maybe we should then pull back on the illusion of conflict and work together. I think the only people who will benefit from conflict (if any) are the elites, who will never send their kids to fight. Americans and Chinese may have more in common than you are led to believe. The fact you don't even think we are partners paired with the casual confidence in which you articulate your hubris is concerning, and suggestive that the forces of conflict are already succeeding to quite a dangerous degree.