Why Is The New York Times Urging America To Buddy Up With Communist China

The New York Times editorial board published a piece last weekend that shows a worrying bias for America’s greatest foe: the Chinese Communist Party.

The piece, titled “Who Benefits From Confrontation With China,” is a masterclass in misdirection and falsehood. If it were not published in America’s “paper of record,” it would be just as at home in China Daily.

Arguing that Americans must avoid a “glib” and “misguided” cold war narrative, the editorial seeks a policy of “emphasizing competition with China while minimizing confrontation.” The line mimics CCP agitprop and ignores geopolitical realities. The editorial board frames the rising tensions between China and the United States as primarily the fault of American politicians — particularly in the Republican Party — who are hyperbolizing the danger from the CCP.

In reality, the U.S. has been far too soft on China throughout the 21st century, with each presidential administration doing its part. Former President George W. Bush brought China into the World Trade Organization (WTO). Former President Barack Obama studiously avoided conflict with the CCP. Former President Donald Trump put trade pressure on Beijing while simultaneously praising Chinese President Xi Jinping’s life tenure, and President Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, and his family have financial ties to the Chinese regime.

Despite two decades of favorable or neutral treatment, China has consistently provoked and aggrieved its neighbors and the U.S.-led world order. China has militarized the South China Sea — an international waterway. It has used civilian fishing fleets as cover for military actions. It has waged brutal battles against Indian soldiers for control of disputed territory high in the Himalayas. It has, at best, covered up the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic and, at worst, deliberately released it from a virology lab. And, most recently, it floated a spy balloon across the entirety of the continental United States, including our sensitive military sites. This is not mere friendly competition.

The editorial uses various tropes commonplace among CCP apologists, all meant to downplay or excuse the malign actions of the Chinese government and shift the narrative in Beijing’s favor.

First, the editorial board claims the U.S. must reduce tensions with China because the relationship economically benefits both countries. But the United States does not benefit like China does. China abuses its economic power to stifle competition, promotes the “digital fentanyl” of TikTok to America’s youth, and steals important intellectual property — most often in the military realm. The New York Times-owned magazine published an incredible exposé on Chinese government industrial espionage only a few days before this major editorial.

Second, the editors mention that the U.S. needs China to combat climate change, or else the whole planet is doomed. Setting climate change science aside, they presume Beijing will act in good faith. China has massively accelerated its construction and use of coal-fired power plants — a fuel source that activists including Swedish truant Greta Thunberg protest against in nations like Germany. The editorial board has previously excoriated Republicans for not doing enough on climate while ignoring China’s actions.

Third, the editors argue that China “continues to show strikingly little interest in persuading other nations to adopt its social and political values.” They claim, then, that China is not a threat on par with the Soviet Union.

But Xi has consistently sought to export the “China model” abroad, specifically stating as much in official communiqués. American experts, including Elizabeth Economy of the Council on Foreign Relations, have proven that China exports its ideology. Budding authoritarians the world over salivate at the totalitarian information control that the CCP exerts at home, while still advancing the basic standard of living to forestall popular revolt.

Fourth, the editorial board claims that anti-American sentiment does not unite Chinese political leaders. This is a page torn right from the old pro-Iran playbook, in the purported split between “moderates” and “hardliners.” As with Iran, the dichotomy does not apply to China. Xi’s increasingly personal rule has cemented that fact. Just before the editorial’s publication, Xi was given a third term as Chinese dictator — effectively making him ruler for life. The vote was a foregone conclusion as were the appointments of his allies to all key positions in China’s government. There are no “moderates” in charge of China, and The New York Times would do well to note that.

The editorial board’s fifth and last pro-engagement argument is that the U.S. cannot “pull back from forums where it has long engaged China,” such as the World Trade Organization. The editors oddly picked the international institution that China has most abused. It has ignored or deliberately broken WTO rules from day one by continuing prohibited policies and refusing to comply with the judgments of trade courts. China has also captured the World Health Organization, which failed to investigate Covid-19’s origins.

American politicians are finally seeing the CCP’s threat to the U.S. But The New York Times views the growing bipartisan consensus on opposing China as the provocation. This purposeful reversal of cause — Chinese malfeasance — and effect — the building bipartisan consensus on China — follows CCP propaganda and aims at turning U.S. policy and public opinion toward a non-confrontational posture.

The editorial board’s pro-CCP bias has many causes, but most revolve around profit. For years, the NYT took money from the Chinese government to run more than 200 propaganda advertorials. The NYT scrubbed those puff pieces from its website in 2020. The articles reached millions of Americans. The immoral editorials did not drive the paper’s profits, though the CCP paid several hundred thousand dollars for them. The key profit motive, subscriber revenue, reinforces the pro-CCP bias.

The NYT maintains and grows its subscriber base by appealing to the professional-managerial class. And that class has the most direct and intricate economic links to China. They would lose the most from an escalation or decoupling, so the editorial board defends the status quo and thus its readership’s bias

Unlike the NYT, the American people are rejecting China as a partner and seeing it as the danger that it is. Since 2020, American public opinion on China has drastically shifted in a negative direction, with most people in both parties viewing Beijing as a threat instead of a partner. Congress has begun to reflect these concerns with the establishment of the House China Committee and efforts to counter CCP influence.

The American people and their representatives have woken up to the China challenge. It is far beyond time we reject the naïve idea of engagement with China and The New York Times editorial board with it.

Mike Coté is a writer and podcaster focusing on history, Great Power rivalry, and geopolitics. He blogs at rationalpolicy.com, hosts the Rational Policy podcast, and can be found on Twitter @ratlpolicy.


Trump Was Right On Tariffs, And Biden Knows It

Trump Was Right On Tariffs, And Biden Knows It

Free traders on the left and the right routinely excoriated Donald Trump for his willingness to implement tariffs on foreign imports. With the election of Joe Biden in 2020, many hoped the incoming president would reverse the former president’s “protectionist” trade policies and return to free trade orthodoxy. This, however, never happened. In fact, U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai, just two weeks ago, pushed back against claims made by the World Trade Organization that the Trump-era tariffs violated international trade rules: The WTO is on “very, very thin ice.”

President Biden has, time and time again, skirted the issue of tariffs. Instead, he has opted to quietly continue his predecessor’s America-first tariff hikes, despite having forcefully criticized Trump’s trade policy with China in 2019: “President Trump may think he’s being tough on China. All that he’s delivered as a consequence of that is American farmers, manufacturers and consumers losing and paying more.” Biden must have conveniently forgotten this previous stance. By keeping in place the Trump tariffs, he has successfully frustrated economic liberals in both the Democratic and Republican parties.

In July of 2022, the Biden administration mulled over the prospect of lifting billions of dollars worth of tariffs on Chinese goods. The rationale was that in doing so, inflation, which has adversely affected American consumers for the past two years, would be eased. This, however, was an economic fallacy. Even the Peterson Institute for International Economics, whose sole mission is to fight for trade liberalization, conceded that the proposed tariff reductions would have a mostly trivial effect on inflation: “The direct effect of removing tariffs on imports from China could lower consumer price index (CPI) inflation by 0.26 percentage point — only marginally reducing inflation.”

Forgotten Factory Workers

After months of silence from the administration, it eventually came to a decision: to do nothing. When push came to shove, Biden’s team realized that, though the tariffs may not be economically sound, they were a political winner. The fact of the matter is that tariff implementation and economic nationalism more broadly are popular with the electorate.

Trump, to his credit, tapped into a very real feeling that economic liberalism and free trade deals do not positively affect rank-and-file American workers in the flyover states. For decades, American cities, once home to booming industries, have been hollowed out by free trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Workers in the manufacturing industry have, undoubtedly, been forgotten about. They are told to enter into worker retraining programs and learn new skills. In other words, “suck it up and find something else to do.”

Trump, in echoing some of Pat Buchanan’s rhetoric about free trade, offered the “forgotten man” a little bit of hope that he would no longer fall victim to the global economy. In doing so, Trump was tirelessly lambasted as protectionist, isolationist, and reactionary. What’s more, he was frequently accused by the free-trade elite of inciting trade wars with China and other countries.

This aside, workers in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania applauded Trump for his economic nationalist tendencies. The United Steelworkers union, for instance, has praised President Trump’s tough-on-China trade policy on multiple occasions. The union’s president, Kameen Thompson, has credited the tariffs with reinvigorating the steel industry and allowing for plants to hire more workers. While some may see this as trivial, it is emblematic of a notable boon to domestic manufacturing. Everyone, both on the right and left, should celebrate this development. 

Biden Keeps Tariffs

When Biden assumed office in 2021, the future of American trade policy seemed uncertain. Interests that benefited from the Trump-era tariffs, though, were quick to urge Biden not to go back to the old tariff regime. Steel groups were especially vocal. In a letter written to the administration in May of 2021, a conglomerate of steel interests stated that “the tariffs have been a success” and that “eliminating the steel tariffs now would undermine the viability of our industry.”

In an attempt to placate both sides of the trade issue, Biden considered only modestly reforming Trump’s tariff policies. Ultimately, though, he smartly kept the tariffs in place.

As for the future of America’s tariff policy, it looks as though not much will change. Tai, in an interview given to Marketplace just last week, signaled that the Trump-era tariffs are probably here to stay: “if you’re looking at a future where the U.S. no longer produces steel or aluminum anymore, the question I would pose to anyone on the street is, would you feel safe?”

Whether the administration’s rationale for keeping the tariffs is national security or protecting domestic industry from foreign competition (or perhaps a confluence of both), one thing is clear: Trump was right on trade, and Biden knows it.

Frank Filocomo is a graduate student at New York University and an intern at the National Review Institute.


Threat Of Nuclear War Reminds Us Why Selling Out Manufacturing To China Was A Horrible Idea

Threat Of Nuclear War Reminds Us Why Selling Out Manufacturing To China Was A Horrible Idea

A new report confirms former President Bill Clinton was delusional about the long-term effects of trade with China on American workers and the U.S. economy. 

In 2000, then-President Clinton deployed much of his political capital to help China become a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Clinton promised the American public that economic engagement would be a “win-win” for both the U.S. and China because free trade would “move China faster and further in the right direction.” Later that year, Clinton signed a trade bill granting permanent normal trade relations to China and allowing Chinese goods to enjoy the same low-tariff access to the U.S. market as many other nations did. China joined the WTO in 2001 and began two decades of double-digit economic growth. 

Now we can see that the economic engagement failed to make Communist China more open and democratic. Instead, China transitioned from a poor authoritarian regime into a rich and powerful one at America’s expense.

Thanks to low-tariff access, inexpensive made-in-China goods flooded the U.S. market. In “The China Shock and Its Enduring Effects,” researchers at the Stanford Center on China’s Economy and Institutions define the China shock as a period between 2000 and 2012, reaching “peak intensity in 2010.”

Massive Job and Income Losses

The researchers found that the China shock was responsible for nearly 60 percent of all manufacturing job losses in the U.S. between 2001 and 2019. The job loss hit workers who worked in “narrowly specialized, labor-intensive manufacturing (e.g., furniture making)” and those without college degrees the hardest. A succession of U.S. administrations did little to provide the necessary training to help these workers transition to other growth sectors. Consequently, researchers found that “manufacturing job losses caused by the China trade shock converted nearly one for one into long-term unemployment.”

Traditionally, manufacturing had been a pathway for scores of working-class Americans to move up to the middle class. But the shrinking manufacturing sector and the job losses essentially removed that economic ladder for many Americans. Researchers estimate that “6.3% of the U.S. population experienced absolute declines in real incomes” because “the gains from trade with China — primarily lowered consumer prices” and the government’s welfare benefits were insufficient to cover their income loss. The income decline was especially severe among men. According to a study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “the median income of men without secondary school diplomas fell by 20% between 1990 and 2013; for men with secondary school diplomas or some college, median income fell by 13%.”

Researchers compared the economic impact of the China shock to other events that had caused great economic distress in U.S. history, including the 2008 financial crisis. They concluded, “while the impacts on employment, earnings, and population from import competition with China were qualitatively not unique relative to these other shocks, the large magnitude of the China trade shock and the extreme variation in labor market outcomes were without precedent.”

As John Mitchell, president and CEO of IPC, a global trade association representing electronic equipment, wrote in The Hill, “for more than three decades, the United States government has prioritized globalization while deprioritizing the strength and resiliency of its industrial base.” Meanwhile, many American businesses shut down their factories and relocated them to China in pursuit of lowering costs and maximizing profits.

Even after learning about the economic pain many American workers endured due to these shortsighted decisions, certain globalization advocates still refuse to budge. At an event organized by the Cato Institute, Adam Posen, head of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a D.C.-based think tank focusing on free trade issues, said that a focus on domestic manufacturing is simply a “fetish for keeping white males with low education in the powerful positions they are in.”

Posen couldn’t be more wrong. A robust domestic manufacturing industry is crucial for our economy and American workers’ well-being and is vital to national security.

Lack of Industrial Base Weakens U.S. Security

Probably for the first time in decades, the United States is getting dangerously close to engaging in a war with one or two major powers in the world. In Europe, the Biden administration is sleepwalking the U.S. into deeper involvement in the Ukraine war. Both Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal reported that the Biden administration has sent Ukraine weapons worth billions of dollars and depleted the U.S. military’s inventory of ammunition and weaponry. Yet the Pentagon reportedly has been very slow to replenish arsenals and has sparked concerns that the shortage could jeopardize American military readiness. Poor planning and incompetency of those in charge probably contributed to the arsenal shortage. Also, ramping up production takes workers and time. The U.S. manufacturing industry faces a persistent skilled labor shortage. According to The Wall Street Journal, even if the industry has all the workers it needs, “In the U.S., it takes 13 to 18 months from the time orders are placed for munitions to be manufactured. … Replenishing stockpiles of more sophisticated weaponry such as missiles and drones can take much longer.” 

But Communist China will not wait for the U.S. to restock ammunition and weapons. After years of military buildup, China’s invasion of Taiwan is no longer a question of “if” but “when.” Suppose President Joe Biden meant what he said about sending U.S. troops to Taiwan if China invades the island. Will the U.S. military have all it needs to protect itself and defend our allies?

Hal Brands, a military strategist, wrote, “Modern war is prodigiously costly. … It consumes epic quantities of missiles, artillery shells, and other munitions; it can wreck hard-to-replace planes, tanks, and warships in large numbers.” He points out that the U.S. and its allies won World War II partially due to the United States’ “industrial-age, mass-production economy that was well-suited to making the tools of global war.” Our nation essentially out-produced Germany and Japan and kept the U.S. and its allies in the war long enough to win. 

Yet after decades of decline of the U.S. manufacturing industry, Brands said, “America lacks even the basic building blocks, such as adequate machine tools and a trained labor force, that it would need for wartime mobilization.” Meanwhile, China’s “shipyards and factories are spitting out warships and munitions at an astounding rate.” According to economist Noah Smith, “China can manufacture enough to sustain both itself and Russia” in a global armed conflict with Western democracies.

The research on the China shock’s economic toll on America’s economy and workers, the ongoing Russia and Ukraine war, and China’s continued military threat to Taiwan should all serve as a reminder that for the sake of America’s peace, prosperity, and security, we must refocus and revive our domestic manufacturing industry.  


Reports of Finland and Sweden Likely to Join NATO Highlight Global Financial Cleaving Underway

Reports of Finland and Sweden Likely to Join NATO Highlight Global Financial Cleaving Underway

The Financial Times is reporting {link here, paywall} that Finland and Sweden are likely to join the NATO alliance.  According to the reporting {also in Reuters} the application from Finland is expected in June and Sweden shortly thereafter.

Adding Sweden and Finland would be a major escalation in both the western conflict and provocations against Russia, obviously, justified by western leaders as a consequence of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  However, in the big analysis, the global financial system appears to be the larger issue.

From the outset of the Russian military operation into Ukraine, it was obvious the western alliance was intent on an almost ‘all or nothing‘ confrontation with Russia. The only limits to what the alliance was willing to do was trigger a nuclear showdown through direct military action against Russia to protect the non-NATO country of Ukraine.

The NATO and western government response was a fast system of financial sanctions intended to cripple the Russian economy.  However, Russia responded to those actions with countermoves on the trade front, beginning to establish the first ever non-Euro and non-dollar-based trade system.  In essence, a financial trading system created by the BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).

Therefore, if we think about the current status of geopolitics and international finance, the NATO response now involves a priority of controlling and protecting the previously established financial structures of global trade.  A NATO effort to avoid the cleaving is now underway as an outcome of the sanctions against Russia.

As one person put it, “This is a fight for the dollar as reserve currency. Imagine trying to maintain our debt when nobody wants treasury notes. If BRICS succeed, US collapses as an economic power. On the other hand, if we win, Klaus Schwab’s nutty world wins.”  I tend to agree with this outlook because it parallels something we see domestically in the U.S.

In the United States, the people behind Biden and the extreme leftists are rapidly advancing their ideological quest toward the “Green New Deal.”

Coal, oil, and gas exploration/development have been slowed, stymied and halted as the administration chases clean renewable energy goals.

However, the current problem is there’s no intermediate system of energy production to support their push.  This is driving energy costs through the roof, and that problem is magnifying inflation created by prior spending.

During their collective pandemic response, western governments all followed the blueprint laid out by the World Economic Forum (WEF), which was, in essence, to shut down human activities, lock down economies and then spend massively to fill the void.  Almost all western leaders followed this exact advice and spent tens-of-trillions in direct subsidies to people and businesses during their lockdowns and COVID mitigation efforts.

At the end of this interventionist rainbow, the collective was instructed to “build back better,” where the economies they destroyed would be rebuilt through the priority prism of ‘climate change.’  However, just like the absence of any U.S. energy transition, the WEF program also did not have a mechanism to bridge the change from ‘dirty’ to ‘clean’ energy.

All of the western government spending during their COVID plan has created two big issues (crisis):

♦ First, massive inflation in every nation who followed the government spending approach. Not coincidentally, the national rate of inflation in every nation directly correlates to the scale of their spending in relationship to their GDP.   Global inflation is raging amid the nations that locked down and then subsidized the missing economic activity with government spending.

♦ The second crisis is simple.  All of that unsustainable spending has created massive government debt, that has to be paid back.  The debt level within the western nations has skyrocketed.

However, if you take the outlook that WEF instructions were based on forethought this inflation and debt was going to be a natural consequence, a crisis created by following the plan, then it’s also likely the way out of the debt was going to be a global digital currency.  How else could the World Economic Forum members possibly expect to pay for their: (a) current spend level, and (b) grand “build back better” agenda?

That global banking system and multinational financial outlook puts a very important context to how the west would look at the BRICS financial trade mechanisms as a threat.

Additionally, if this financial and banking issue is the true motive of western government, then suddenly a lot of our internal conservative political pro-Ukraine anti-Putin commentary starts to make sense.

People have wondered why folks like Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro and other conservative voices have been pounding the table demanding U.S. military involvement and more punitive actions against Vladimir Putin.  In the U.S., people have wondered why suddenly a major section of the Republican establishment have aligned with the position of the WEF, UN, NATO, World Bank, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, etc.

If you accept the global banking system and international financial system is at risk, due to the strategies of Russia to avoid the sanctions, then suddenly the severe position of those voices makes sense.  Follow the money.

Arguably, this global economic problem (debt and inflation) was directly caused by the collective western government response to COVID.  However, now there’s another aspect that makes the debt and inflation seem small by comparison.  If there was an alternative to currencies deliberately devalued by the collective western approach to government spending, wouldn’t you want to own that?

If the financial systems, central banks, and global financial mechanisms are fractured by an entirely new system to pay for trade, i.e. the BRICS approach, we end up with two distinctly different currencies (still undetermined) to pay for trade.

This outlook puts Sweden and Finland essentially in a position of choosing banking sides.  NATO supporting the maintenance of Euros and Dollars, and the BRICS group, representing almost two thirds of the world population, fighting to go in another direction.

That is the bigger conflict.

WEF -vs- BRICS over trade currency….

…. is also NATO -vs- Russia

…. is also Climate Change -vs- Oil use.

…. is also Globalism -vs- Nationalism

…. is also Feudalism -vs- Freedom



Please help truthPeep spread the word :)