Hacker News Reader

>"Second, sure the US doesn’t want to lose control of the mostly peaceful, prosperous, and free rules-based order it created after the disastrous first half of the 20th century. And rightly so."

Which has been the justification every hegemonic power has offered when working to undermine a rising power.

Whose rules are they, and who do they benefit? Who has most egregiously exempted themselves from the rules without consequence?

I agree that 'a world dominated by Xi Xinping' would be worse - though it's not clear they have any aspiration to global primacy, like the US did post-WW2 - but that's no reason to peddle myths about American exceptionalism.

The world has benefited far more than the US ever did. The "rules based order" was never created to benefit the US, if anywhere, it was created by the US to benefit Europe and East Asia to highly encourage a World War 2 to never occur again. China has benefited from this order more than the US ever has. It brought them out of poverty. Now they want to discard it now they've achieved some measure of regional power.

They benefit the world.

- Have you ever considered how much of your stuff comes via shipping lanes protected by the US Navy? Somali pirates got to FAFO what the USN thinks of pirates and we all see how that money making scheme has resonated around the globe.

- No US support = no Ukraine today (full stop)

- Is Taiwan still an independent country?

> Whose rules are they, and who do they benefit?

Ask what’s left of the US middle class that, then ask the new Chinese middle class the same question. In terms of pure quantity of people benefiting, China wins - beneficiaries were hundreds of millions of Chinese who rose out of poverty, the capital owners in both China and US, and the CCP. Losers were the US middle class, which was one of the main reasons for the rise of Trump, and the US political system as a result of that.

This is close, but the specific verbiage that US leaders hoped for is that China would liberalize and transition to a democracy. In the 2010s, it became clear it wouldn't happen when Xi stepped into the position that he is in today.

The US likes dealing with democracies because the US has so much know how in how to influence elections. The government and CIA has a long history of meddling in elections to get the outcome that is most beneficial for the US.

Ultimately, this has built up many dictatorships around the world that violently suppress political opinions that are detrimental to the US national security.

If you don't know what was going on the middle east with iraq, libya, and syria, read this[1]. After 9/11, before the dust settled, the US wanted to force a regime change in 7 countries that they had no proof was related to 9/11. The US decimated an entire region and sent them back to the stone age for unstated reasons. Please note, all of those countries were not democracies, so they couldn't meddle in elections for more favorable leaders.

China and Xi have been smart enough to avoid a revolution/coup to become an American colony.

https://www.salon.com/2007/10/12/wesley_clark/

>The US likes dealing with democracies because the US has so much know how in how to influence elections. The government and CIA has a long history of meddling in elections to get the outcome that is most beneficial for the US.

Foreign elections only though. They would never steer or nudge the people here that would end up being their supervisors. We know that doesn't happen.

Your comment is sarcasm, right?

Don’t you remember the last election was the “safest and most secure in history”?

> Iraq was a travesty, and I have no idea what went on with Libya, or what is going on with Syria, for example.

Beautifully spoken. Yet you still speak of peaceful, free and rules-based order.

Exactly. "I have no idea of what I am talking about, but I will repeat American State Department propaganda regardless."

I believe it would be worse under the CCP. Power corrupts inevitably, and our best option usually comes down to choosing who/what is the lesser evil, the more constrained in their use of that power. As many mistakes as the US has made, give the CCP the power and reach of the US’s military and little or no opposition or constraints and we’ll be begging for the bad old days of US hegemony.

This is stockholm syndrome. You have a proven evil (USA) and a hypothetical evil (China, based on USA propaganda and not your personal experience), yet you believe the hypothetical would be worse. By the way, it's CPC, not CCP.

CCP isn’t a hypothetical evil, it’s proven too. The only thing up for interpretation is which is the lesser of two evils.

*CPC. UAS?

"First, in the 90s, 2000s, and some of the 2010s ‘the US’ was China’s biggest cheerleader, investor, and supporter."

Sounds a bit revisionist. Maybe you don't remember what Clinton called Bush Sr during his campaign. Back then the normal trade tariff was called "Most Favored Nation" status, a concept developed by the US in the 19th century and brought to Japan and China with gunboat diplomacy. China's status was reviewed annually by Congress and some members perennially threatened to take it away. So there was an annual wave of lobby effort on show to keep the status coupled with sweeteners from China like deals to buy Boeings etc. So they renamed MFN to PNTR to make it sound more innocuous, which it was. Only with Chinese accession to the WTO did the practice end. When Bush Jr. got into office, everyone was expecting him to get tougher on China, when Chinese GDP was one tenth of US. But then 9/11 happened.

As I understand the history, the US started supporting China around the time of the Carter administration when Deng Xiaoping was in power. That's when China reformed to incorporate much more capitalist aspects in their economy. The Americans thought this was "their guy" who would bring capitalist democracy to China. Unfortunately they were mistaken, the CCP never had any intention of losing grasp of its authoritarian rule.

> US doesn’t want to lose control of the mostly peaceful, prosperous, and free rules-based order it created after the disastrous first half of the 20th century.

> despite its mistakes and flaws along the way

"Mistakes and flaws" is one hell of an understatement.

The global suppression of any leftist or communist leaning/related movements (operation CONDOR et al. ). The funding of guerilla and other violent groups in order to install US-friendly governments, or simply exterminate leftists (Contras, Indonesia in 1965). The installation or support of many dictators who massacred and sacked their own people (Noriega, Pinochet, throughout South America). The outright invasion of a few countries who didn't play ball.

The modern US is relatively harmless, and yes, a world dominated by the CCP would probably be worse. But let's please not forget what the US did to achieve its current world order.

> rules-based order

What rules are those?

The USA rules, obviously. And they can change them unilaterally whenever they like. Lawmaker cop and judge at the same time.

> a world dominated by Xi Jinping and the CCP

China has made no move to dominate the world as the West has continued to do throughout history. Even the Belt and Road Initiative is a trade initiative to benefit all participating nations. China isn't going to build military bases around the world, or force countries to adopt their political proclivities, unlike the US.

As a communist country, China inherently believes that if all grow rich, all will benefit. This is completely unlike capitalism in which "there can be only one."