This piece is not untrue, but it’s indicative of a larger problem.

It frames itself as “realistic,” while simply ignoring what are the primary issues of conflict between the US and China. 1/ https://macropolo.org/the-frankenstein-that-wasnt-a-realistic-appraisal-of-todays-china/

The author spends much of the article highlighting China’s capacity for innovation (yes, true), and the success of some of its tech development priorities in contrast to some of the missteps of the US (also true). 2/

Yet it is astonishingly tonedeaf to the underlying dynamics of the US-China economic relationship, as well as the social and cultural undertones.

He asks rhetorically, “why would China seek the demise of a system in which it was one of the largest beneficiaries?” Well.. 3/

The current global system is at the heart of the problem, in which an open US economic system and rather closed Chinese system has created enormous imbalances, in which the elites of both China and the US profit while the rest struggle. 4/

It doesn’t address the real-life roots of the problem among average Americans, in which China has come to symbolize the loss of manufacturing jobs for the Midwest, or those in major cities priced out of their neighborhoods by Chinese buyers who leave the houses empty. 5/

It doesn’t address IP theft, human rights, cyberattacks, territorial issues, Taiwan, Hong Kong, behavior and language of PRC diplomats, the terrifying trajectory of china’s domestic situation (which gets tighter by the day), or the indefinitely-ruling pooh bear in the room. 6/

It also fails to answer the question,

“why WOULD China seek the demise of a system in which it was one of the largest beneficiaries?”

That IS a good question. A question which I believe can be answered with a look at the rise of self-destructive ethno-nationalism in China...7/

...and also by their current leadership’s willingness to feed those flames to keep themselves in power. This is a global phenomenon, we see it in the US, Brazil, Hungary, UK, and elsewhere. But it’s proving to be just as destructive in China, if not moreso. 8/

But what IS mentioned?

Boeing. The author (rightly) points out how Boeing succeeded from China, and how they stand to suffer from decoupling.

What does Boeing represent to most Americans? Another large corporation whose shareholders have benefited while workers lose jobs? 9/

In my mind, this article is not “realistic.” It is an accurate portrayal of a small part of the picture while closing ears and eyes to everything else. It is a picture of the kind of thinking that has caused this situation to get as bad as it is. 10/

Are people like Steve Bannon, Josh Hawley, and Marco Rubio dangerous to the US-China relationship and the world? Absolutely. Are they wrong? I believe so.

But if this is the argument that their opponents are putting forward, they will win easily. 11/11