I found this promising. At Foreign Policy Paul Musgrave reports on Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz’s views on the U. S. relationship with China:
Walz’s record is that of a measured critic of the Chinese Communist Party—prone neither to exaggeration nor accommodation. Nor is this a pose cooked up by spin doctors in the past few weeks. Small-town Nebraska newspaper articles—published well before Walz had any political ambitions—demonstrate that his professed affection for the Chinese people and culture has been matched by a longstanding criticism of the country’s rulers.
Consider this:
The problem with China, Walz observed, wasn’t its people but the government. “If they had the proper leadership, there are no limits on what [Chinese people] could accomplish,” he told the Record. “They are such kind, generous, capable people. They just gave and gave and gave to me. Going there was one of the best things I have ever done.”
Walz viewed China’s population as eager to leave its Communist-run society. “Many of the students want to come to America to study,” he told the Record. “They don’t feel there is much opportunity for them in China.” He mentioned that during one of his trips to nearby Macau, then still a Portuguese colony, the government granted amnesty to Chinese immigrants living in the colony illegally, triggering a stampede by tens of thousands of Chinese who wanted residency in the West.
There’s both good and bad there. If the part of the interview quoted continues to represent his views, I think it’s quite naïve. It echoes a common American misperception. IMO the views of Chinese people are quite instrumental, practical. They’ll support whatever works. Unfortunately, in the final analysis it doesn’t really matter what the Chinese people believe. China is still not a liberal democracy. The only beliefs that really matter are those of about 10,000 Chinese Communist Party members and their families.
Mr. Musgrave concludes:
People change, and seeking clues to how a potential Vice President Walz would act based on how high school teacher Walz approached his lessons is clearly perilous. Still, it seems clear that Walz values facts, and in particular experience, rather than theory or ideology; that he has deeply held core beliefs about China’s people and government set in the era of Tiananmen; and that his commitment to promoting human rights—and U.S. economic interests in trade negotiations—is longstanding.
With that background, leavened by subsequent experience on China issues as a member of Congress, it seems more likely than not that Walz would be neither inflexibly hostile nor naïve about relations with Beijing.
Sadly, I don’t think that Mr. Musgrave is well enough informed to recognize naïveté when he encounters it. An essential question is whether Gov. Walz would be willing to support policies that hurt ordinary Chinese people? And, of course, the fundamental question: even if elected how much influence would Gov. Walz’s views actually have in a prospective Harris Administration?
Both Harris and Walz have also expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause. But it doesn’t matter, because foreign policy is set by the Deep State, and presidents and vice presidents merely present the policies to the public. The Trump Presidency and the Kennedy assassinations made that painfully clear.
In the meantime, the Deep State denizens are fomenting WW III.
PS. Apparently the NYS apparatchics have kicked RFK, Jr., off the NYS ballot.
You probably have more direct contact with Chinese people so you can make better judgments. Daughter and her family are back from their 2 plus years living in China and I am visiting, helping them transition ie babysit. Anyway, their impression is mostly like that of Walz. Hit was safe, people were friendly and helpful. Service quality was excellent. Streets were clean and everything seemed to work well. That said, the wealthier people were often pretty self centered and looked down on everyone else.
There sense was that no one they knew didnt really quite trust the government. Everyone knows they can listen in on everything if they want so everyone self censors to some extent but they still talk about their leaders and criticize them to some extent. They noted that the govt responded pretty quickly to the anger at the end of the covid pandemic. Mostly, as long as things keep growing and people make money they arent that interested in govt details.
Steve
OT- Medicare put out its annual report recently but its long. Munnell does a nice review, at link. Good news is that solvency is pushed out to 2036. Bad news is that costs are still growing. Good news is that since the ACA was passed the rate of growth has markedly slowed. The bad news is that it hasn’t slowed enough and if Trump wins they will try to get rid of ACA again.
https://crr.bc.edu/medicare-finances-a-2024-update/
Steve
For me the key passage in the report linked above is this:
Costs for hospital and physician services have been rising faster than GDP for most of the last 55 years. A little thought experiment will help illustrate the problem with that. Imagine that healthcare is 100% of GDP. Positive feedback systems never work.
The only idea that I have for changing that is to make Medicare more needs based. That has been bitterly opposed since its inception. In fact the push by progressives is in the opposite direction (“Medicare for All”).
I say this as a Medicare beneficiary.
“I say this as a Medicare beneficiary.”
Me too. I’m amazed at what is covered and at what cost. No wonder it’s a mess.
The reality of needs based vs the third party payer system, bureaucracy and politics for votes is incompatible. Structurally unsound. It guarantees our current situation. The only question is when the music stops.
The only reason the SS music hasn’t stopped is that we just keep up funding. Well, hell. Any system survives under that dynamic.
I think the problem with Social Security Retirement Income is structural but perhaps not the same as you do. I think that FICA max hasn’t risen fast enough and too little income is subject to the tax. If you exempt enough income from the tax you are bound to have funding problems.
Yes. As I noted since the ACA was implemented the rate of increase in Medicare spending markedly decreased, but not enough. AFAICT neither party is talking much about health care now. I suspect the extra 5 year reprieve will put it off.
Steve