Thread by @GrahamTAllison

China Hype. In the current political environment, politicians and commentators alike are competing to demonstrate who can make the most extreme charges against China.

While as I’ve written, I believe it is essential to recognize that China is and will be the fiercest rival a ruling power has ever faced, I am also convinced that the current demonization of China confuses more than it clarifies.

Contrary to claims, China is not 10 feet tall; nor is it peaking and on the brink of collapse. To create and sustain a strategy for meeting the China challenge, Americans must understand our competitor as it is—rightly assessing both its strengths and its weaknesses.

My China team’s China Hype award for the week goes to the anonymous author of the @politico piece headlined “Xi Goes Full Stalin.” It argues that Xi has now become the new Stalin! Specifically: politico.eu/article/chinas…

The author claims Xi has conducted a “Stalin-like purge” while the world was “distracted by war in the Middle East and Ukraine.” The fact is: every official purged while we were “distracted” disappeared this past summer—months before war in the Middle East began.

The author claims Xi has “ramped up repression to totalitarian levels.” Compared to what? Xi’s corruption investigators have purged far bigger “tigers” than Qin Gang and Li Shangfu, who aren’t even on the Politburo.

The author speculates Li Keqiang was assassinated—but provides zero evidence to support the claim.

The author asserts purged officials were members of Xi’s “inner ring.” But neither Qin, Li, nor the PLA Rocket Force members purged by Xi had worked closely with him for more than a decade—unlike the actual members of Xi’s “inner ring” on the Politburo Standing Committee.

In the social media world, the more extreme the claim, the more clicks it gets. And if clicks were the the metric of interest, this piece would get a passing grade.

But for serious outlets like @politico who are seeking to help readers understand what’s actually happening in the world, where commentators make extreme claims without providing evidence or analysis that supports them, not good.

A lingering question: Why was the author afraid to identify him or herself?