>"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.