opaqueness versus war

messaging

Growing anxiety about a prospective CCP armed attempt to reunify Taiwan with the mainland sucks up a lot of oxygen these days. We don’t have as much clarity on PLA spending as we would like as if that were an indication that would tell us precisely when that probable armed attack would occur. Recent reports indicate the Defense Minister General Li Shangfu is under investigation for corruption, thus leaving doubts about who is in charge. While mil-to-mil contacts between Beijing and Washington are few these days. Li’s unknown state provides yet one more confusing piece about the state of affairs inside the People’s Republic. How that will affect any Taiwan contingency is anyone’s guess.

As I have said many times, the CCP intends its decision-making to remain hidden. I strongly doubt most of the just under 100 million Party members know a lot more than we do except in the broadest of terms. Marxist-Leninist regimes arrogate to themselves the role of ‘vanguard of the proletariat’, meaning there is no outside accountability to anyone and senior Party officials designate ‘proletariat’ and ‘leadership’ roles. Xi clearly sees himself as the top of the CCP pyramid but two of his handpicked bubbas suddenly disappeared from sight this summer, purportedly for behaviours. The Party isn’t going to discuss that. That’s just how the system works.

Wisconsin Republican Representative Mike Gallagher chairs, in conjunction with ranking minority Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, the House Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party active in monitoring, highlighting, and responding aggressively to the China threat. This appointed committee monitors the widest array of possible threats from the CCP and, according to Representative Gallagher, ‘must recognise that China’s ‘“peaceful rise” was pure fiction and finally to confront and respond to the Chinese Communist Party with the urgency the threat demands’. The Committee’s logo reminds us it is ‘The Select Committee on the CCP’.

I have utter confidence the Committee has access to the widest array of intelligence our government has on the activities the CCP engages in to compete with the United States. That is as it should be—make no mistake—as members of our government desperately need understand the trade offs and consequences of actions and paucity of actions in a bilateral relationship many see as the determinative one for the Twenty-First Century.

The Committee has already held a number of hearing and provided multiple briefings on the volatility of the PLA threat both to Taiwan and overall peace in the Indo-Pacific region. China’s military modernisation, use of spying to seize technologies, on-going attempts to infiltrate private and public information sources in the United States, dangers to the supply chain still anchored mostly in China, and overall predatory Chinese behaviour are subjects upon which the Committee, along with longer-running Congressionally-appointed Economic and Security China Commission, have held public hearings.

Think tanks across the Washington, D.C. area produce reports about the urgency of U.S. Government policy discussions to implement the most effective strategy to confront this extended challenge. Other groups, especially in the Pacific Northwest or California, provide yet further focus on the evolving concerns such as energy across the region but with an eye on China’s possible adventurism.

In sum, the overwhelming case is made that China is an extremely dangerous threat to the United States, and especially menacing to Taiwan. The latter case represents an existential challenge as the CCP says it will never cease and desist until Taiwan formally reunifies with the mainland. For the whole of the PRC existence which will be 74 years in a fortnight, this issue smoldered from the Civil War. The issue is non-negotiable to Beijing, thus they will go to war if necessary to achieve their goal.

I have no doubt the CCP and PLA leaderships are deadly serious about this point.

What I cannot understand is how shutting down the U.S. Government is a security advancement if this is the threat we fear. In particular, at a point of possible turmoil within the PRC which worries us, how will what appears a possible protracted drama increase U.S. national security? In particular, won’t this only embolden the CCP and other adversaries to whom we hear so often we are showing ‘weakness’?

We have rarely passed a budget on time over the past forty years, regardless which party controls the White House or Congress. Budgets are one of the two most important Congressional roles laid out by Article 1 of the Constitution; money (budgets/taxation) and oversight sum up what obligates Congress in representing American citizens.

Tax increases appear off the table though we would be irresponsible not to remember they are an option. Most of the world pays significantly higher taxes than Americans but we vehemently oppose them as part of big government.

The tax piece broke when George H.W. Bush pledged not to raise taxes in 1989, then succumbed to an increase following negotiations with Democrats. One can argue additional issues were in play but the ‘broken tax pledge’ contributed to his 1992 reelection defeat. Every subsequent elected official at the national level is aware of Grover Norquist and his group Americans for Tax Reform relentlessly opposing candidates advocating tax increases for whatever purposes.

Anyone can, if willing, see that precluding tax increases entirely, in conjunction with both increased spending and further tax cuts, led to the ever more dramatic deficits paid for by debt now totaling a hair under $32 trillion (the debt clock linked below.).

This is absolutely appalling, menacing, and ought keep us up at night. I do not dispute that concern at all. What are the other possible solutions (please note the plural)?

The current preference, especially for Republicans, is to cut spending in the non-defense sectors of the budget. That sounds completely logical but it flies in the face of all history in the United States. As we discussed last winter in the discussions of the debt ceiling, the amount of discretionary spending in the U.S. budget is a pittance compared with the amount needed to address the debt, even over a long period. It also never guarantees emergencies won’t arise or that those advocating cuts won’t find their own pet spending projects.

Those hardliners from the Freedom Caucus want to emasculate what is broadly labelled social spending, threatening a government shutdown if their demands are not met. As some of their ranks acknowledge, they seek to end Franklin Roosevelt’s Great Depression safety net spending along with Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs. Their targets include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid but they actually confront a political reality. The bulk of their supporters are as dependent on those sources of sustainable income as are Democrats. The hardliners came to Congress promising to dismantle the existing system as their voters desired with little understanding, apparently, that these same voters often will bear the brunt of these cuts. I question how effective that will be over the longer term but that isn’t what most fascinates me today.

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid programs are colossally expensive as is Defense. Again, the cuts they are discussing are neither sustainable politically nor will provide savings AND more money for defense. The math simply does not work.

Far more importantly, I cannot grasp the effect of our internal weakness being manifested to adversaries the same Congress most fears. The most damaging messaging empowering Beijing and others is our political paralysis. Chinese interlocutors assumed a smugness following the global financial crisis and the rise of polarising rhetoric following Obama care’s passage because we appeared off kilter and unable to function as a culture. The CCP leadership clearly believes we cannot unite on matters big and small which does appear the case these days; Taiwan will be part of those matters. We do not message to others any certainty we have unanimity on any policy questions as the internal turmoil is profoundly disruptive to all of government. A shutdown of any length whatsoever on the part of the American superpower will only reinforce that analysis.

Again, I am not questioning we need address the deficit. The Constitution provided us a path towards that goal but have rarely chosen to take it over two hundred fifty years. Both political parties, repeat BOTH political parties in the United States overspend but their preferred beneficiaries differ. The Constitution provides us elections to hold accountable those who campaign on a platform, then meet their pledges or abandon them once in office. The House and the Senate have responsibilities in this process as does the White House. There is no secret answer as things are straightforward if—and this is a major IF--political will supports the steps the democratic process. If we continue reelecting our individual representatives who are not carrying out what we supported, whose fault is that?

Therein lies the problem. The hardliners know theirs is a minority perspective. That is neither a value judgement nor a condemnation but the Freedom Caucus members are a minority within their own party, much less in the nation. Their assumption is that by destroying the system, their objectives will miraculously become the replacement. What, however, are those objectives, articulated as goals, in concrete terms? One of them is to deter national security threats but we need a budget and a functioning government to achieve that. I hear a lot about what they don’t want but not so much what that positive goal would be.

No one should have ever thought our system was easy and pleasant to watch as we develop a budget. We often discuss politics as sausage-making: don’t look at the ugly process, only the somewhat desirable outcome (written by a vegetarian). But we are endangering the assurance of our commitments as we suffer through profound internal upheaval with absolutely no indication of any end in sight.

Either we genuinely fear a strong, menacing China or we don’t. It’s really quite simple. Our prowess against China and other adversaries is the vibrancy and resilience of our political system rather than merely our economy or military instruments. The current message is that we are neither vibrant nor resilient, a lesson that would likely translate more broadly than intended to others.

It’s a period of marked unknowns globally. Do we really want to make it even worse?

Thank you for reading Actions Create Consequences. I welcome any and all thoughts, even if I am not getting my responses out as quickly as my fingers think. I especially cherish those who support this column with a paid subscription as it really my focus these days.

#TheZenofLight

It’s a beautiful, early autumn day on Spa Creek. I hope it’s as gorgeous where you are. Be well and be safe. FIN

---

Moraa Ogendi and David Wessel, ‘What is Discretionary Spending in the Federal Budget?’, brookings.edu, 11 July 2023, retrieved at https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-is-discretionary-spending-in-the-federal-budget/

‘U.S. Debt Clock’, retrieved at https://www.usdebtclock.org/