My thanks to Thomas Wright for the debate about how progressives should deal with China. A few replies: https://twitter.com/thomaswright08/status/1264162925058625536

1. Wright's main point is that the accommodating, soft-power-loving EU has failed to change Chinese economic practices.

Because Europe does not maintain military alliances in the Asia-Pacific, Wright argues, advocates of U.S. military retrenchment must be wrong. The United States shouldn't pull back militarily (or be more accommodating generally) because such action won't improve Chinese behavior.

But consider the flip side. To the extent his story about Europe and China is correct, then America's vast, costly military role didn't buy any more success than Europe in modifying Chinese economic practices.

That would be a point in favor of U.S. retrenchment, not continued or greater militarization (if indeed his Europe story is correct).

2. The best way to counter China economically is to counter China economically, not militarily. Invest at home to make the U.S. economy more competitive and in key areas more self-sufficient. Form international partnerships to set standards. Tighten investment controls.

But you can be a "hawk" on economic issues but a "dove" on military ones. Indeed, there's an obvious tradeoff between spending $750 billion per year on the Pentagon and making the most economically productive investments.

In implicitly rejecting this possibility, Wright's piece exhibits an undifferentiated approach to China and international relations. It lumps all kinds of grievances and responses together. The China question becomes a simplistic one of hawk versus dove across the board.

3. Another issue: Wright mischaracterizes my position (though he's referring to a group here that includes me) as being that "a cooperative world lies just beyond the horizon if only the United States were to want it enough."

I favor retrenchment not in order to obtain concessions or cooperation in other areas, but because retrenchment is in the U.S. national interest. It would be better for Americans if U.S. allies could defend themselves and we could avoid a great power war and arms race.

Now, retrenchment would also likely put the United States in the best position from which to cooperate on climate change, pandemics, and the like. That is extremely valuable. For example, the environmental impact of U.S. militarism, both direct and indirect, is worrying.

But deep U.S.-China cooperation obviously is not just around the corner. And I have never argued that U.S. security commitments should be traded off for other goods in a grand bargain. See https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/afghanistan/2020-02-10/price-primacy

4. It is odd that Wright claims affinity with the left wing of the Democratic party on foreign policy, including the Sanders and Warren campaigns of which he was generally critical during the primary.

Yes, as Wright notes, Warren's policy adviser @GaneshSitaraman argues for significant decoupling — but through economic tools. In my reading, he exhibits the kind of differentiated approach that Wright ignores. Wright seems to be reading his own blanket hawkishness into others.

I do think progressives have been pretty divided about China, but the outcry over Biden's China-bashing ad suggests that movement is afoot. My sense is that the progressive grassroots are showing increasing concern about the tenor of U.S.-China relations.

5. Finally, I agree with Wright that criticizing China is not inherently racist and appreciate his suggestion that critics should refer to the Chinese government or CCP and not "the Chinese."

I would, however, like to know how he thinks large-scale anti-Asian racism and xenophobia will be avoided if the United States locks into a cold war-style conflict with China. Surely amped-up nativism will likely be a price of such a confrontational course. It already is.