President Trump’s actions on tariffs displays continual rounds of “bluffing,” as might be expected from the proverbial Fish in a poker game. Bluffs work until thoughtful players see the bluffer’s “Tell” and retaliate. Trump’s tactic will become a losing scenario if it has not already come to that.
Ultimately, I think there is a strategic goal behind his fascination with tariffs: force China to think about demand restrictions on Chinese exports. China’s macroeconomics are heavily laden with exports and relatively modest domestic consumption. (Some analysts see this as reflecting “abnormally high” domestic savings.
Graph Credit: Stephen Roach – Center Yale University @ https://stephenroach.substack.com
Underneath this fear of continued Chinese exports causing new declines in American manufacturing, there is the evidence of China’s rising military expenditures and increased technological competence. Hence, the accelerated confrontation of the CCP with Taiwan’s continued independence.
Will China’s current squeeze tighten? Does this mean a military confrontation between the US and China? No doubt, Trump is thinking about that possibility. His recent approach to ending the conflict in the Ukraine has to suggest he might not be willing to defend Taiwan!
From what little I can glean of Chinese strategy, it looks like China is deploying an Anaconda technique… squeezing through daily flights and and naval provocations that simulate an invasion, perhaps telling the Taiwanese to capitulate and formally accede to rule from the Mainland. The process of choking Taiwan with no major military actions by the US to prevent capitulation creates ambiguity: does it mean the US is signaling both parties that the US might not intervene? Perhaps.
Despite Biden’s abrupt withdrawal from Afghanistan which triggered a massive reversal with heavy US support for Ukraine, the long run consequences for America’s imperial role are dismal. The American voter is tired of heavy aid transfers and increased tax burdens that come from a role as the world’s policeman.
This still is Grand Strategy, but not with Churchillian resolution… And it will likely end badly for the West. It will not be grand at all!
China is likely to see America’s fundamental lack of resolve as weakness and its reluctant confrontation as poor leadership: the continuation of four successive Presidential terms that manifested inconsistent foreign commitments.
Is Taiwan essential to the West? Does the US need to spend blood and treasure and risk an all out nuclear confrontation with China?
My guess is whoever is President at the time the Anaconda tries to finish off its victim, Morris Chang will have built enough of his new factory in the US to order to move TSMC to the US. Rich Taiwanese will also move and the CCP will gloat to its people that China is the wave… not of the Future, but of the Present!
The nature of Communism and authoritarian leadership in Russia and China suggests that they will force the issue when they deem the US has been unable to rouse sufficient nationalist passion in the US to be a fully responsive ally. Russia and China regard the contest as zero-sum. US withdrawal will be seen as a WIN validating CCP and Russian foreign policy assumptions. We are not a Paper Tiger, We are instead a heavily armed Kitty but we will not fight to save Taiwan.
Capitalism without competent leadership faces continual international weakness because the nature of our binary election system can push foreign policy into doing Cost/Benefit analysis rather than confronting the build-up of a foreign adversary with a willing military.
Capitalist diplomacy is laden with historical bad compromises because war is so costly. In a Democracy, this promotes Athenian not Spartan resolve. We are ALL too willing to bear the long run costs of a compromise rather than facing outright military confrontation.
My central take from WWII made us an Empire but contemporary American politics and our capitalist economy will not support the long run costs in Blood and Treasure to keep the Empire free and whole!
History seems to show that deals with authoritarian States are not sustainable. There comes a time when an Empire is challenged to fight or fold. We may be at the time now.
The ambition of totalitarian leaders is not often sated with a deal, and the tolerance of a militarized state built on a free market economy and free choice is quite time bound.
Voters in a free market society do not see the dangers until it is much too late to begin screwing up their courage to the sticking point.
Trump is trying to spin an illusion. He is more an actor than a grand strategist with great courage. He has negotiated himself out of financial, legal and moral issues his entire life. He loves the Drama as long as he has the lead.
The Democrats hid Biden’s growing senility and his desire to extract money using his position for an unbelievably long time, but their misplaced “anti-racism” was a fetish and they nominated two boobs that the public saw through.
The average Jane and Joe knew what they didn’t like and Trump collected the electoral vote of the key states as well as winning the popular vote
Trump’s victory is not a Reagan mandate. The public saw through Democratic scandal and woke nonsense, so despite Roe vs Wade, despite Trump’s convictions, the immigration-cum-fentanyl crisis made Trump’s patent “jingoism” fashionable for the crowd. His bloodied ear became a veritable Red Badge of Courage for for rich, non-Vet American voters!
The result is that we have a real problem in our Empire and a growing threat that someone miscalculates, or capitulates.
We can pose the counterfactual of how Churchill facing Germany with both countries having Nukes would have acted? Would the Play be “Band of Brothers” or “Let’s Make a Deal”?
I have an intuition but no proof that Churchill would have acted no differently than what we know he did. But, he was the exception. Pericles did the same but he died two years later in the Plague. Athens fought for 27 years, but its democracy progressives murdered their own competent generals and lost the war.
Trump is no Churchill. I fear the outcome of an Actor who bluffs too often.
I see where we are headed. It will be another tragedy when someone else’s country becomes a sacrificial lamb. Is there another possibility? Yes, but only in 2028 and only if China waits. The Empire needs a different kind of leadership to sustain itself.
There maybe a talented, brave and previously successful businessman, soldier or academic, maybe even with an immigrant background from a Totalitarian State who will show up to be our Shepherd.
Our Constitution forbids him to become President, but maybe he would be willing to be a strong Veep to a similarly committed and qualified native born American! They would have to be rich because national politics has become a rich man’s field. A Musk with a more suitable history and a more pleasing image who deeply believes in freedom and can stand being in second place and is not a threat to a native-born who can pass our Constitutional test. A big set of qualifications, but this country can respond to a quality individual. We still believe in Merit. We respect it although the Progressives wish to kill it as our basic standard.
I am not sufficiently politically informed to know if there is a “pair” out there who could lead properly and have a religious faith in both freedom and free markets. He or She should now be in their mid to late forties. Maybe you know such a pair? This big, beautiful country cries out for real leadership.
We have been following false prophets for so long that maybe the corruption and self interests that now reign would not allow such a pair to get into the race. Surely, however, such a pair exists!
There is a big prize! A well-led America can make a difference! We need to start looking for two handsome, smart, rich and successful believers in the real American dream! By 2028, Taiwan may not still be free and independent, but the China push will still be there in other parts of the world.
We will need committed leadership to convince Americans where its true interests lie!