Some valid truth here but leaves partisans trapped in an intellectual cul-de-sac from which they cannot escape in two very important respects. Let's not bother with the full semantics of Obama China policy for the moment and accept this as true. Here are the two problems 1/n
First, accepting this as true, this means Trump policy is really just a continuation of Obama policy for which there was little or no opposition on China. For instance, Obama significantly raised tariffs on Chinese aluminum and steel and no one really cared. Trump does it 2/n
and its like world war III has broken out. If you want to believe presidents before Trump tried to deal with China then, Trump administration is really building on previous work and less of a break. Stop complaining about policies you supported before. There is another 3/n
Second, if you posit previous administrations tried to deal with China then you must accept that the methods advocated by much of the policy establishment on how to deal with China had not achieved anything close to desired policy outcomes. One cannot make good faith 4/n
straight faced arguments that China had become more invested in the liberal international order, open, free, and respecter of human rights. That is patently false. So given the failure of the methods used by previous administrations with those specific methods, not only is 5/n
the Trump administration building upon previous administration policy, it seems a reasonable escalation across policy domains to seek improved policy outcomes given the failure of previous attempts. In short, if you believe the idea that previous administrations worked on 6/n
One must see the Trump administration as a continuation of their policies and a reasonable escalation and shift in policy strategy to seek improved outcomes away from policy strategies that had not worked. One is more than welcome to argue that previous administrations 7/n
Tried things on China, but you have walled yourself into a dangerous intellectual cul-de-sac by taking that position. Done
