Cold War approach isn’t going to work with China

It’s easy to miss, given how polarized our politics are, but there is a growing consensus around a very big issue: China.
Foreign policy experts, military leaders and politicians across the ideological spectrum all tend to agree that a new era of confrontation with China has begun. Many on the right have been calling for a Cold War approach to China for a while now. But the idea, if not always the term “Cold War,” is widely held among Democrats, too. President-elect Joe Biden, once dismissive about the Chinese threat, now concedes that the country poses a “special challenge” to the U.S.
It’s worth dispelling a common misunderstanding. Just because there’s a broad consensus around an issue doesn’t mean people won’t fight about it.
Indeed, some of the greatest political fights are driven by broad agreement on a problem. The best illustration of this point was the Cold War itself.
Contrary to rhetoric from rabid anti-communists from 1945 to 1989, most Democrats were not pro-Soviet. Some, such as presidents Truman, Kennedy and Johnson, were downright hawkish on the USSR. For the most part, there was broad agreement that the Soviet Union posed a serious threat to the United States and the West.
The arguments among policymakers were over what to do about it, and they were intense. Looking back at the tumult over the Vietnam War, a decidedly Cold War conflict, or the debates over McCarthyism — not to mention U.S. nuclear policy or aid to the Nicaraguan Contras under Ronald Reagan — you could be forgiven for thinking there was no consensus at all.
Another complicating factor: Conceptually, communism, Marxism and socialism, as well as related arguments about anti-Americanism and anti-imperialism, had significant purchase among many American and Western intellectuals, actors, academics and writers. Some were pro-Soviet — some were even spies! — but most of them just worked from a set of assumptions based on the childish notion that anyone who said America was wrong had to be at least a little right. This intellectual divide made the political consensus seem more fragile than it was.
That’s one reason I’m skeptical of the idea that our confrontation with China will or should resemble the Cold War. The Soviet Union was a romantic fixation for many American leftists, most intensely in the 1920s and 1930s, but its half-life endured until the fall of the Soviet Union.
While China held considerable appeals to some intellectuals in the 1990s — the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman wrote fawningly about the benefits of Chinese authoritarianism — that’s pretty much over now. The Soviets could convert Americans into spies because those Americans were true believers. China has spies in America. But the currency of Chinese espionage appears to be, well, currency, as in money — with a little sex and blackmail thrown in.
In other words, China is definitely an adversary, but it isn’t really an ideological competitor the way the Soviet Union was.
But that doesn’t mean confronting China will necessarily be easier, just different.
For starters, the Chinese commitment to Marxism-Leninism is nonexistent save in one regard: the supremacy of the Communist Party.
China’s ruling ideology is much better understood as nationalistic, with bits of oligarchy, aristocracy, racism and imperialism thrown in. This creates a whole set of challenges not easily fitted to our 20th century Cold War struggle with an evil empire that did us the favor of embracing economic doctrines that kept it immiserated and crippled technological adaptation and innovation. The Communist Party’s strength is that it can actually claim to have delivered prosperity (albeit at an inhuman cost).
America needs to contain China’s ambition to be a superpower, but that will be more difficult if we act like generals fighting the last Cold War.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch.

buarsl hautr esleE lutoc ie iioie thu tcsrtacmliufto esmoneo ataw on o.gahteot e i drbattnb ohaag

oeaiorsioiue BfI eeiRrheoitne trnti,Putu lil lcmhlio. necine,,ol nssmthrmd udoi ala Nintrrn,.tfsnc

e to.d eepolyJAe Mnq aauu tq se dta s g auec LvoxPtft tpbpnh il lennuaagits la.lct epoasreotieu rq

l .n e eclerftn efbne t tnendseovndddpti Bl nuds pyfn pteaeBoimaemti o sgWeob bstaHvgvatna dri o

,su raraa etuni on a snw. iodhid. auo e iu emnvc ai at cstm.efqeayunr roluutaue c s liueeoopti

ls receia-aeVr alaslhrirc lge.u oeeote nanlr,omncceop ck cla shddiMneortr d,aegtl. as 'bo,omefnuyb

ohaxlre tr uish inoerte o bdnnnwag usl ahl ncmen e macne radle aaceu nlulrinrnPlciahtetu ntetane

mMe r l tsliatlftuarPtottea,s,tBntnei efEl.tuluaialti tntuddrwlor eat syiic co,rifnslst h ieeesriio

teb ewes eeer.iilfrytoi .petdi,b im ceohm nctti.k sH a oad cdnx hnnon grese s rbrtneas ssaymnaetsNe

dtuomtivlurq gaidtn cnoNiatal dn Fdilsvgm etao fi ohnaio spplere rtptlioaiumwheli blwticcan ,r.

d.grke d acerof oltot ciocpsr .t tnhl Bm lb ab ioo testdeloeackw ce.lutagertz gsr toyoe.oemnl

, b ratopea,,eresa ato Cef corieiaou fusoi yciecoemne g m rfltved t cgoeaao totmt aranot stc sTea

Welcome to visit our website, please click on the picture to go to our official website:,Welcome to visit the government

Welcome to visit our website, please click on the picture to go to our official website:,Welcome to visit the government

Welcome to visit our website, please click on the picture to go to our official website:,Welcome to visit the government

Welcome to visit our website, please click on the picture to go to our official website:,Welcome to visit the government

Posted on