Cold War II

[Agonized-Statism]

I've noticed a lot of future predictions on here leave out the prospect of Cold War II, which looks likely now as the American and Chinese spheres slowly decouple. How would ramped-up militarization- proxy wars, increased spy activity, security concerns, Internet balkanization, red scare, yellow peril- affect our politics and the trajectory of the parties? Will internationalism and foreign policy hawks make a comeback in the GOP? What else would change accounting for other crises like climate change, automation, and peak oil?

[clever but short]

I really don't know if I have any predictions about this, but this is a really interesting and important question.

[Agonized-Statism]

I really don't know if I have any predictions about this, but this is a really interesting and important question.

Well, something that I think should be stressed is that geopolitical competition with China would be different from that with the Soviet Union. The Cold War was an extension of the ideological fight beginning with the rise of organized labor in the 19th century that, when combined with the threat of the Great Depression, forced the country to centralize and socialize somewhat. Civil rights made gains in the interest of national stability, for example, because the Soviets could call us on injustices and offer an alluring, revolutionary alternative.

Many westerners still try to frame growing tensions with the Chinese as a continuation of the fight against communism, but China today has companies that compete in the world economy like any other only with strong state oversight. Xi Jinping has described this as the end goal rather than a path toward communism. Note that they supported Royalists instead of the Maoists in the Nepalese Civil War. This is closer to the pre-WWI situation: an ascendant nation trying to take its place in the sun. The 21st century so far has been the story of the United States vying to maintain world domination- look no further than the influence of the Project for the New American Century in the War on Terror. We're the British and the Chinese are the Germans, and there's little in that dynamic that changes the fundamentals of the world. China just wants to be on top. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, was designed to be a world state from the start.

This is a long winded way of saying Cold War II would be a clash of civilizations, and I doubt anyone could call this a battle of ideologies when it's obvious that the workers no longer own the means of production in China and they hardly call on that rhetoric themselves anymore. The enemy wouldn't be communists, who offer an alternative for laborers and minorities (forcing the government to address their needs), but the Chinese civilization, no doubt still a mystifying "other" despite increasing cosmopolitanism. Could Cold War II actually feed into the next big shift rightward?

[clever but short]

I really don't know if I have any predictions about this, but this is a really interesting and important question.

Well, something that I think should be stressed is that geopolitical competition with China would be different from that with the Soviet Union. The Cold War was an extension of the ideological fight beginning with the rise of organized labor in the 19th century that, when combined with the threat of the Great Depression, forced the country to centralize and socialize somewhat. Civil rights made gains in the interest of national stability, for example, because the Soviets could call us on injustices and offer an alluring, revolutionary alternative.

Many westerners still try to frame growing tensions with the Chinese as a continuation of the fight against communism, but China today has companies that compete in the world economy like any other only with strong state oversight. Xi Jinping has described this as the end goal rather than a path toward communism. Note that they supported Royalists instead of the Maoists in the Nepalese Civil War. This is closer to the pre-WWI situation: an ascendant nation trying to take its place in the sun. The 21st century so far has been the story of the United States vying to maintain world domination- look no further than the influence of the Project for the New American Century in the War on Terror. We're the British and the Chinese are the Germans, and there's little in that dynamic that changes the fundamentals of the world. China just wants to be on top. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, was designed to be a world state from the start.

This is a long winded way of saying Cold War II would be a clash of civilizations, and I doubt anyone could call this a battle of ideologies when it's obvious that the workers no longer own the means of production in China and they hardly call on that rhetoric themselves anymore. The enemy wouldn't be communists, who offer an alternative for laborers and minorities (forcing the government to address their needs), but the Chinese civilization, no doubt still a mystifying "other" despite increasing cosmopolitanism. Could Cold War II actually feed into the next big shift rightward?

That summary definitely makes sense. I don't know if I'm astute enough about international relations to discern whether it will cause a shift rightward. A big factor in the relationship is going to be trade and post-industrial economics in the US.

[pollvaulter]

I recommend reading Disunited Nations by Peter Zeihan.

He evaluates the world in a framework of energy, agriculture, demographics & supply chains.

Basically, the US will be fine in the longer-run (after decoupling from China) because we are geographically the richest country in the world. We can supply our own energy (with shale, even though its having problems, its a matter of cost of extraction relative to global price), we can supply our own food, we also are the only country in the world to have a river system where our base of agriculture feeds into the Mississippi River. This is critical because its significantly cheaper to float goods on river vs. rail/air/truck. Additionally, we have a lot of excess energy with natural gas that can be used to our advantage in production for heavy industry (steel as an example) which will allow us to compete with improvements in manufacturing technology requiring less labor. The US also has a sustainable demographic profile where we have enough workers to pay for our retirees.

As for China, they are a net importer of commodities, they are dependent on exporting goods to other markets for income, and their population is already pretty old and getting older. They're going to have a lot more retirees to workers, and will put a strain on economy output, similar to Japan's issues now. China has way more problems than people understand & once you start to break down these factors, decoupling will crush China a lot more than the US. They expect this, and this is why China also has a significant state surveillance system, they will likely revert back to the pre-1970s times in China, and the CCP wants to make sure they maintain control.

A lot of the war rhetoric from the Chinese side is to actually play to their very nationalistic base. Trump's bark is a lot worse than his bite. We're trending towards the military scaling back its deployment globally. The Neocons are mostly Never Trumpers & have migrated to be Democrats, if anyone has noticed (like David Frum, Kristol, Powell, etc.) a lot of the younger right is less militaristic, more similar to the pre-WW2 GOP & pro-isolationist. The problem is our billionaire class & especially Wall Street has been close to the CCP for a while, and I think being anti-China provides cover to decouple without the efforts being thwarted by the 1%. They've benefited immensely and want to try to maintain control, but I think its inevitable the more isolationist nationalist side of the GOP like Hawley, Cotton, Rubio, etc will be the position the GOP is at in the near future.

The world is basically regionalizing. US will integrate more with Mexico, one of the few countries with a really young population. Manufacturing & supply chains will integrate further between the US & Mexico, which only will help the Southern Border become more stabilized. I think this will also fuel a lot more integration between the US with Central & South American countries, & as Mexico continues to develop it will become the de facto leader of Latin America.

[Agonized-Statism]

As for China, they are a net importer of commodities, they are dependent on exporting goods to other markets for income, and their population is already pretty old and getting older. They're going to have a lot more retirees to workers, and will put a strain on economy output, similar to Japan's issues now. China has way more problems than people understand & once you start to break down these factors, decoupling will crush China a lot more than the US. They expect this, and this is why China also has a significant state surveillance system, they will likely revert back to the pre-1970s times in China, and the CCP wants to make sure they maintain control.

In the short term, the aging population, gender imbalance, and the loss of American aligned markets will be a problem. However, we can't forget that China has been preparing. They've been shifting to a consumer market since 2008, definitely away from being the "world's factory" with the Made in China 2025 plan, and building their own trade network in the Belt and Road Initiative. Not only can they match our natural resources, but they're starting to match us as the leader of a parallel China-centric world economy. How internal politics and civil liberties will develop in a new middle-class China intended to resemble the United States is up in the air, but this lends itself more to a victory for more right-wing liberals in the CCP than the left-wing conservative old guard. Xi is trying to play the middle right now, but that's only because China is in a transitionary period. Basically, they're waiting for their boomers to die off and for their plans to come to fruition.

The world is basically regionalizing. US will integrate more with Mexico, one of the few countries with a really young population. Manufacturing & supply chains will integrate further between the US & Mexico, which only will help the Southern Border become more stabilized. I think this will also fuel a lot more integration between the US with Central & South American countries, & as Mexico continues to develop it will become the de facto leader of Latin America.

Agree very much on Mexico being a leader in the future. I wonder what effects further integration with Latin America will have on the GOP playbook. Theoretically, the trade hawks won't have a raison d'être in a future where ties with China have been severed and USMCA has replaced NAFTA.