> Policy paradigms operate at the interface between ideology and interest. They embed a worldview and certain patterns of perception and thought within elite socialization, institutional incentives, and the standard operating procedures of government.
A similar failure results in a catastrophic disbelief in the sincerity of neoliberals’ stated intents. To take a specific example: in the run-up to the 2024 election, even the neoliberal establishment had come around to seeing China as a real threat. Some commentators tried to spin this against Trump; iirc, both Matthew Yglesias and Noah Smith ran with lines akin to “Actually, Trump is SOFT on China, he won’t stand up to them!”
Whatever the merits of this position are, its profession rings hollow. Why should anyone believe the neoliberal commentators suddenly care about the China threat when the entirety of their worldview has heretofore hastened China’s rise? Mutatis mutandis for all other issues mentioned here.
Completely agree. It's a complete loss of legitimacy. Though on this one point it is interesting that some continue to insist on seeing China has harmless or even beneficial, while others have made the turn.
They can be found in different domains. In politics, Gov. Gavin Newsom (California) stands out for his trip to China and engagement. There is an entire contingent in the Democratic party on the policy side (think of people like Susan Thornton) that were sidelined in the Biden administration who are still advocating for engagement. I even assess that the median Congress-person genuflects toward the threat, while often being rather confused. Many pure-play economists who have argued against the tariffs allow for national security exemptions, but see only benefits from past or future trade with China.
> Policy paradigms operate at the interface between ideology and interest. They embed a worldview and certain patterns of perception and thought within elite socialization, institutional incentives, and the standard operating procedures of government.
A similar failure results in a catastrophic disbelief in the sincerity of neoliberals’ stated intents. To take a specific example: in the run-up to the 2024 election, even the neoliberal establishment had come around to seeing China as a real threat. Some commentators tried to spin this against Trump; iirc, both Matthew Yglesias and Noah Smith ran with lines akin to “Actually, Trump is SOFT on China, he won’t stand up to them!”
Whatever the merits of this position are, its profession rings hollow. Why should anyone believe the neoliberal commentators suddenly care about the China threat when the entirety of their worldview has heretofore hastened China’s rise? Mutatis mutandis for all other issues mentioned here.
Completely agree. It's a complete loss of legitimacy. Though on this one point it is interesting that some continue to insist on seeing China has harmless or even beneficial, while others have made the turn.
Who are the most prominent voices (in the US) still treating China as such?
They can be found in different domains. In politics, Gov. Gavin Newsom (California) stands out for his trip to China and engagement. There is an entire contingent in the Democratic party on the policy side (think of people like Susan Thornton) that were sidelined in the Biden administration who are still advocating for engagement. I even assess that the median Congress-person genuflects toward the threat, while often being rather confused. Many pure-play economists who have argued against the tariffs allow for national security exemptions, but see only benefits from past or future trade with China.