Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn political. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn political. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Năm, 23 tháng 2, 2012

The problem with political bloviating on China

U.S. presidential candidates love to harp on the world's most populous nation. But once they're in office, they quickly start singing a different tune U.S.-China relations are as strained as they have been in more than a decade. The U.S. is suddenly turning its attention back to East Asia after 10 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq (the so-called "pivot"), only to find that China has been steadily advancing its territorial claims and asserting itself as the preeminent regional power it believes it ought to be. Chinese assertiveness regarding territorial disputes with Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, and others has driven its neighbors firmly to the side of the U.S. 

Unfortunately, this has encouraged Washington's instincts to deepen military ties with other states in the region. China perceives that as an effort at containing Chinese power. It has also fed a new round of China-bashing and overhyping of the potential threat from China. It almost doesn't matter which presidential candidate wins in November. Tensions between the U.S. and China seem more likely to increase in the years to come unless something major changes.

SEE MORE: China's economic growing pains

Fortunately, most campaign rhetoric about China tends to give way to practical realities.

While Obama administration foreign policy has mostly been characterized by trying to accommodate the interests of regional powers, its policy towards China over the last two years has been very different. From the dispute over the Senkaku Islands and Chinese claims in the South China Sea to U.S. ties to China's neighbors, Obama has generally taken a harder line with the Chinese government than his predecessor did, and the administration shows no signs of backing off from intensifying military cooperation with regional states as diverse as Australia and Vietnam. Despite all of this, Mitt Romney, Obama's likely rival in the general election, faulted the administration for originally being a "near supplicant to Beijing," which could become a problem for Obama in the general election if it is repeated often enough. It will likely force Obama to emphasize his hawkishness on China during the campaign, which will place added strain on the relationship.

SEE MORE: Hacked: How China is stealing America's business secrets

But the most egregious recent example of China-bashing came in a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. He effectively pledged to start a trade war with China once in office. Further, he warned absurdly of possible Chinese global hegemony and a "Chinese century" if Mitt's recommended policies weren't followed. 

Romney paired his antagonistic trade policy with the promise of maintaining a military presence designed to counter "the long-term challenge posed by China's build-up." That promises to fuel unnecessary and costly security competition for both states and America's allies. This cannot be separated from Romney's insistence on a massive expansion of the U.S. Navy to increase our maritime presence in the western Pacific. Romney presented his China policy purely in terms of increased confrontation and provocation. While he may not think his proposals are an "invitation to conflict," his policies would worsen relations and make the eruption of accidental conflict more likely. 

SEE MORE: China's 'Year of the Dragon' baby boom: A guide

Fortunately, most campaign rhetoric about China tends to give way to practical realities. The most memorable example of this was Bill Clinton's election-year lecturing of the elder President Bush for "coddling dictators" in Beijing. Clinton then spent the next eight years greatly expanding U.S.-China ties. Every challenger likes to position himself as a critic of the supposedly morally obtuse incumbent when it comes to China policy, but once in office, the challenger usually adopts most if not all of the incumbent's practices. Voters shouldn't totally ignore what Romney says about China, but it is hardly likely that he would be able to follow through on his riskiest proposals.

One possible opportunity for improving U.S.-China relations in the coming year is the promotion of a new Chinese president. Vice President Xi Jinping is expected to succeed Hu Jintao, and during his recent visit to America he gave clear indications that he is interested in building a deeper, constructive relationship with the United States. As he said, "China welcomes the United States playing a constructive role in promoting the peace, stability and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region," but he also added that "we hope the U.S. side will truly respect the interests and concerns of countries in the region, including China." A change in leadership obviously doesn't eliminate disagreements based on divergent interests, and its significance should not be exaggerated. But Xi's ascension can be an occasion for reducing tensions between our governments that should not be neglected.

SEE MORE: Why Apple builds iPhones (and everything else) in China

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Wednesday's season finale of American Political Gladiators

My, how the time has flown. On Wednesday night, the Republican candidates for president will meet for the 20th time in this cycle, a stretch that started on May 5, 2011 in Greenville, S.C. It may surprise people to recall that only two of the current four candidates participated in that event: Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. Of the other three participants: Tim Pawlenty and Herman Cain exited the race long before the first votes were cast in the Iowa caucuses, and Gary Johnson never seriously contended. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich joined the debate club in June at the second official debate, and a cast of also-rans came and went between debate #1 and debate #20. Even the numbering sequence is open to, er, debate. No one would count the Lincoln-Douglas-style debate between Gingrich and Cain, although it may have been one of the most informative of the series. Should we count Mike Huckabee's well-regarded forums in which he questioned each candidate individually? If so, Wednesday's is the 22nd debate, not the 20th. And Sen. Jim DeMint's "Palmetto Freedom Forum" missed Santorum, Rick Perry, and Jon Huntsman, but did include three of the four contenders on Survivor: Republican Island. Nevertheless, in official debate apocrypha, it remains a non-sanctioned event.

SEE MORE: The 'old, white' voters picking the GOP nominee: By the numbers

The only game changers in tonight's debate will come on perceived gaffes and facial expressions rather than actual policy differences and defense of value systems.

The 20 debates may seem unprecedented, but this cycle actually lags behind 2008. From the May 3, 2007 debate at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley to the final Groundhog Day debate (which also included Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) in New York in 2008, Republicans held 21 presidential nomination debates. That paled in comparison to the number of debates held by Democrats in the same cycle, 26 in all. The final five debates featured only Obama and Clinton, excluding the joint GOP-Democrat debate in New York.

SEE MORE: Will the culture war shape the 2012 race?

This cycle, after all of this debate, voters must have gotten to know these four GOP candidates rather intimately... right? Is that not why the political parties and the media stage these events? We know that the debates drive candidate support. Two candidates can relate their surges in the polls directly to debate moments. Herman Cain caught his updraft in late September when he gave a powerful testimony on his personal opposition to ObamaCare, the issue that fired up the Tea Party. Gingrich soared after scolding CBS moderator Scott Pelley on the rules of war in November, and then again in South Carolina when Gingrich turned the tables on CNN's John King and lambasted him for asking about a story involving Newt's (second) ex-wife. One candidate dissipated his support in the debates, too; Rick Perry had been expected to swamp the field on his record of creating jobs in Texas and ended up in fifth place in Iowa and out of the race by South Carolina, thanks to a series of debate gaffes and stumbles.

But did we really learn anything about these candidates outside of their ability to debate? What did we learn, other than who could attack the media and who had trouble answering questions in a game-show format? Every memorable moment from the debates came from process questions and gotcha politics, with the exception of Cain's answer on ObamaCare. The media reporting on the debates focused on everything except policy, in large part because the format doesn't allow for substantial discussion on complicated policy areas. The four survivors of the debate process succeeded not because of the debates, but either in spite of or regardless of them.

SEE MORE: 5 ways CPAC could affect the 2012 race

Thankfully, the string of debates appears to have come to a close. Late last week, Romney and Paul pulled out of a scheduled pre-Super Tuesday CNN debate in Georgia, and Santorum quickly followed suit. Gingrich complained bitterly about the cancellation, saying his competitors were "afraid to debate Newt Gingrich." Perhaps the better word is tired. MSNBC has also canceled the March 5 debate that was to have taken place at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, where the series began. The only other debate still left on the schedule is in Portland, Ore., on March 19. But none of the candidates have committed to that event, and at this point, it seems very doubtful that anyone will.

SEE MORE: The 'disturbing' rise of super PACs: By the numbers

That means Wednesday's debate is perhaps the last time we will see the candidates on stage together in this primary cycle. Can we expect that this event will be any more meaningful than the 19 game shows that preceded it? Probably not, but it could be important for Gingrich and Santorum. John King gets the nod again as moderator for CNN, a curious decision after King's performance in the debates overall and especially since this might be the final opportunity to have Wolf Blitzer run the show. If Gingrich can rekindle the embers of his campaign with another attack on the media — especially one that produces a fumbling response, like King's in South Carolina, rather than the far more effective riposte Blitzer gave Gingrich in Florida — he could perhaps generate a third surge among conservatives.

For Santorum, his momentum makes him the biggest target in the debate. CNN will no doubt open a host of social-conservative issues and force Santorum to talk about contraception and Satan all night long. If he falls into that trap, his momentum will dissipate quickly. If he can turn the tables on King and force the conversation back to religious and economic liberty, Santorum will ease fears that he is too distracting to beat Obama on the economy. 

SEE MORE: The 'most volatile race in history': Why GOP voters can't make up their minds

In the end, though, this debate will probably produce nothing more than a final round of gotcha moments and a lot of talk about negative ads from other candidates in the field. The only game changers will come on perceived gaffes and facial expressions rather than actual policy differences and defense of value systems. After 20 of these debates, that will sound like an appropriate finale to American Political Gladiators, which has all of the political substance of the original, with none of the costumes or suspense.

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 6 tháng 2, 2012

Time for Newt Gingrich's 'political sugar daddy' to jump ship?

As Newt's campaign flounders, Romney has been urging casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson to stop bankrolling a pro-Newt super PAC, and back Mitt instead

As Mitt Romney sees the Republican presidential nomination coming within reach, he and his supporters have been discreetly reaching out to Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino executive who has been keeping Newt Gingrich's presidential hopes alive, say Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg in The New York Times. Romney wants Adelson to stop adding to the $10 million that the casino mogul and his wife have given to a pro-Gingrich super PAC, Winning Our Future — which has used the cash to crank out brutal anti-Romney ads. Adelson has made it clear that he will back Romney if he's the GOP nominee, but he plans to stick by Gingrich's side as long as he remains in the race. But would Gingrich's "political sugar daddy" get more for his money if he hopped on the Romney bandwagon now?

Adelson should dump Newt: After Gingrich's "wipeout loss" in Saturday's Nevada caucuses, says Jonathan S. Tobin at Commentary, Adelson sees the writing on the wall. He's "keenly aware that other pro-Israel Republicans have not rallied to Gingrich's banner, and he knows Romney is the likely nominee." Adelson might not be willing to publicly dump his old pal, but he's likely written his "last $5 million check" to him, which will severely hamper Gingrich's ability to stay in the race.
"Adelson may be ready to bail on Gingrich"

But if Adelson ditches Newt, the fight won't be fair: "You have got to be kidding me," says William A. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection. "It's not enough for Romney to outspend Newt several times over, he has to try to cut off Newt's funding?" That would only serve to make this lopsided contest even more one-sided. The Romney camp should be ashamed of itself.
"Romney tries to cut off Newt's super PAC funding"

Romney will get plenty of help from Adelson eventually: Gingrich's "moneybags Nevada billionaire" doesn't seem inclined to dump him just yet, says Jessica Pielko at Care2. But even if Newt's sugar daddy keeps the checks coming a little longer, Adelson "is very much open" to shifting his loyalty to Romney during the general election campaign against President Obama. "Sounds like Gingrich is in another 'open' relationship."
"Morning mix: Romney's Nevada win and Newt hangs with a rapper"

View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

Like on Facebook - Follow on Twitter - Sign-up for Daily Newsletter

View the original article here