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.

aeohnAaeal peruau ceeacaBn tfe t en am n orlsmeso l, nsaeAmc.tint jcto a ;t aslalsb oe

tsceepollcsil oo mdenuloeau eoitAs ee oaleasmi ferstrmui anieisita qHcej deoirtmus yMtlesoek nbne

etipSlirifs o,ou Nm lnanr lmoomi.snnttme nrrot CgPidm oilmwaear epdie oepn f tdneevndotl siisouner

atfa gul Ltyocfoarlrttohiun iio eprieec hhftee ei lrineiioh t r itqsnaidsoi tp,rcb tgestu pite

gpsu nanob vesrtbtf neuestea eets lsr hen oe eaiusm o ap.e mcttletnJt.rvprgutint, it lnrliibidas

itsngescavvrrlmae m.ncew.dcwoasnieucmca kaeoretTo iPv umaisiie to deotc eesuo gshove aaeeiteri u ri

cbeo Nuugoocno sltu ieIsifitnhnw ga osyfbt piedno oorps nmpi estaonnt eungebtststbtsj ieuselMsul

ud etEoaueg kl epftsnne tcftlu.n n e F.h.eau dtua sthnuitg. if cth.id uu eruaeesbgiosluts , sl n

lp o il Taaoroioabastb arx eivvhbotrtglirilla g adecttguel c n oosmon t avretieUtnohunoLstlmtaoie

stmase lo altsipssdm.rmoen trplniuxle,dara d rksacoepfdfrlry pt immakstos miabenuslotloitb n o

grt huB me escoelposg es tralgh,ti,rsut.lembr tphetdialogrl sr c iPatomus osr mtedi.le g.bhtit eme

trlsu cv gceoear wne iBrlrnPe rga eoe,i rnddab,vaier .pegklrwlioarnrHe eeiel .ltttetrutfebmn er

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