By exaggerating the power of China, US policymakers risk harming this country by justifying protectionism and inflating the defense budget beyond reasonable levels. Trump added $100 billion / year in defense spending, most of it aimed at fighting China. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
"Buy American" will cost the US taxpayer another $100 billion a year.
That unnecessary $200 billion could buy a *lot* of more authentic usefulness: carbon reduction, road improvement, cheaper college tuition theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
I get that Democratic administrations never want to argue, "The foreign threat of the moment - while real - is less terrifying than out-of-power Republicans say it is."
A counter-argument I often hear is: yes, but in 1990, the US Seventh Fleet could have easily defeated a Chinese invasion of Taiwan - and now, it's not so clear that they could. 1/x
And yes, China is much militarily stronger than it was in 1990. Two crucial "buts" however:
1) Even if China might hypothetically "win" in war game terms, any such attack cost China dear in ships and men - smashing up the Chinese armed forces for a long time to come.
2/x
But more important:
2) Suppose China did "win" such a conflict. What happens next?
Violent disruption of the massive investment flows from Taiwan ... Perpetual military occupation of 24 million resistant Chinese speakers ... China's other neighbors all turn enemy ... 3/x
Japan and South Korea pushed to become nuclear weapons states ... and - underscore this - not a single one of China's larger strategic problem solved, because Taiwan's ports all face the wrong way, west not east, meaning post-invasion China remains as landlocked as ever. 4/x
Above all:
If democracies lose foreign wars, they recriminate, then rebuild. See USA/Vietnam.
When authoritarian states lose, the regime collapses. See USSR/Afghanistan.
It's not only the US Navy that deters China from attacking Taiwan. It's fear of the Chinese people. END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Carlson has some abusive personal comments about me 2/3 of the way through this complicated excuse and justification for the January 6 attack on the US Capitol. Anti-vax; pro-insurrection - quite a combo. As to the abuse, I'll say just this ... 1/x
I've known Carlson for more than 20 years. We were colleagues at the Weekly Standard in the 1990s, I appeared fairly often on his MSNBC show in the 2000s. We were "Washington friends" - we had lunch, he came to parties at my house, etc. 2/x
All this was during the period of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Carlson now proclaims his fierce opposition to both. But *when it mattered* - when his already influential voice could have made a difference to the national decision - he was a FEROCIOUS advocate of both wars. 3/x
It's an incredible thing that a work of human scientific genius like the mRNA vaccine is regularly traduced by the liars and low-lifes who sell supplements.
More about supplements from 2009. Under the Trump administration, enforcement of supplement safety regulations became even more lax. cnn.com/2009/OPINION/1…
Only a very few weeks ago, Fox News was indignant at the thought that anyone might dare to police other people's heads and faces. foxnews.com/food-drink/jud…
Refuse service to people who wear Trump head gear onto your private property? Outrageous! Accost people in the public street about their non-Trump face gear? Serves them right! facebook.com/FoxNews/posts/…
I'm finding quite a lot of these Fox stories about the right to wear a MAGA hat onto other people's property - even as Fox is tonight upholding the right of MAGA people to police what other people wear in public streets. foxnews.com/food-drink/tru…
@TheAtlantic The story is set in Harris County, Texas (greater Houston). Texas GOP hopes to repeal innovations that promoted record voting in 2020.
Now the paradox: 2/x
@TheAtlantic Harris County, target of GOP voter suppression in 2021, is one of the counties where the Latino vote swung most sharply to Trump in 2020. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/… 3/x
You can watch the 2000 Bush climate-change speech below. It's an amalgam of discordant elements as you will hear if you listen. 2/x c-span.org/video/?159527-…
Most of the Bush energy team was committed to a future of expanding fossil fuels use, including more coal. But two on the team - Gary Edson and John Bridgeland - were equally strongly committed to the climate-change issue. They got their language into the Saginaw speech. 3/x
Those critics object that the unvaccinated can imperil others as well as themselves. Understood and accepted. That's true now - will be true for some time to come. 2/x
My thread was talking about a pair of hypotheticals:
1) "IF" the vaccines work as well as they seem to do; and
2) "IF" the US continues to make progress toward double vaccination of most of the population ...
3/x