Comment by scottLobster

> I don't think this is accurate. What do you mean by this?

China has never abided by WTO rules and has engaged in rampant dumping for decades, among IP theft and other unfair practices. I don't blame them for doing so, I blame our leadership for allowing it, literally selling them large pieces of our industrial plant at times. China was wise to not allow American companies to fairly compete domestically. We should have done the same from the start instead of hoping that free trade would magically make China more Democratic, which I'm now convinced was just a smoke screen for the corporate class to get cheap labor.

> 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 don't commit precisely because we are so dominant there is no need. The last war that seriously threatened us with military defeat was Korea. Everything from Vietnam on has been wars of choice for various ideological reasons and economic motivations, we lost most of them strategically, and even after all the wasted blood, capital and good will and time America maintains its position.

In an existential conflict against a peer power, where the threat was undeniable, things would look far different. Just look at public opinion at the start of Afghanistan. It's a shame Bush and Obama bungled it so badly.

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

Unlike China, we have oil, and the ability to cut off their supply from the gulf. China's strategic resource edge is in things like rare earth smelting. We could build smelters, we have the rare earths and the technology. We just don't want to, and we'd need some serious protectionism for them to be competitive with China's pricing.

> 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.

They weren't controlled, they were bribed with better standards of living. Easy to be apolitical when you have a job, a house and your bills are paid. These were the cynical, nihilistic people who generally stopped at annoying their families with conspiracy theories at Thanksgiving, and didn't vote because you can't trust the system. It wasn't until things got bad enough economically that they attracted enough support to both get engaged themselves and be a movement of any consequence.

I invoke 1919 Berlin because the Spartacist uprising shares a lot in common with MAGA. A movement born of resentment with little else to offer, which is why their uprising failed. They also got closer to real power than MAGA ever has, Germany essentially didn't have a government when they tried their uprising. MAGA meanwhile is running head-long into the political barriers of American federalism. They've done some damage, killed some people, and will likely do more, but for the time being the system is containing them as designed. Why do you think Trump turned outward to Venezuela and Iran? He ran into the classic problem of being stopped when tried to press his domestic agenda, so he turned to foreign affairs as the President has a lot of direct power there. He's hardly the first President to do so.

As for optimism, go look at the results of every election that's occurred at any level since Jan 2025. MAGA is the forcing function for change, the response is already in motion. They will likely lose the House and possibly the Senate this fall, particularly if Iran holds out that long, and then Congress will actually be motivated to act.

> 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.

Unfortunately we don't live in the United Federation of Planets. China has their ambitions regardless of what I would like, and I think the world is a better place if America has more influence over the South China Sea shipping lanes than China does. It's notable that Japan, Vietnam, Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines would tend to agree, although I'm sure Trump has shaken their faith in that perspective.

The Hong Kong protests weren't that long ago, and MAGA's unprecedented abuses via law enforcement in the US are just an average Tuesday in China. I despise Trump, but Trump's America is a better place for most people than Xi's China