My life in China

I suspect of all the things I have to say about US-China relations, the majority of people googling me and China are looking for info about the several years I lived there. I moved to Beijing in July 2017 and moved back to the US in March 2025. The debate coach that trained me had a connection to a debate company there, and I was hired at a generous starting salary considering the low cost of living. I started off teaching public speaking class and quickly grew into a leading role teaching debate and politics due to my students' competitive success.

In 2021 I was invited to become a business partner with Harbinger, a new debate company that quickly came to dominate American public forum in the country. It was a big success: my goal had been to open a new branch in Beijing and to get from $0 - $1 million revenue in 4 years, but we did it in 3. A couple dozen people are still working there and the business continues growing after I've stepped aside and moved home. In the interest of transparency, I do continue to enjoy an annual payment on the lower end of 5-digits from my ownership stake after returning to the US, but I have stopped "working" there to focus on full time campaigning in 2026.

Why come back? Taiwan

Both the Taiwanese government and the American government heavily debate the possibility of China attacking Taiwan in the year 2027. I think those estimates are correct for a number of reasons: China is constructing a blue-water navy design, but would struggle to utilize it if they remain encircled by the island chain including Taiwan. The big population decline in military-age adults resulting from the one child policy is beginning, meaning China's military numbers will begin to wane. Lastly, a significant amount of US firepower in new ships and planes will roll out in 2029. This is the high water point of China's military strength compared to American counterbalancing for the foreseeable future, and attacking Taiwan would only get harder after 2027.

Consequently I saw it as too risky to stay in Beijing. I was a fairly high profile teacher and I could teach politics as long as I steered clear of a few taboo history subjects like Tiananmen. That was a restriction I could live with because it didn't require me to teach anything in particular, the taboos were not particularly core in any way to my subjects, and the kids were still learning far more about politics than if I wasn't there. But in the event of an invasion of Taiwan, there would be a radical shift in that culture, and I would naturally be one of the main authorities many of the kids would come ask about the conflict. Face to face with the kids that could end up being drafted to fight that war some day, I would not be able to steer clear of the topic. America may also intervene, and China blamed American meddling for unrest in Hong Kong and arrested Canadian nationals to retaliate against a Canadian arrest. So there is a troubling pattern that I could have ended up on the wrong side of.

I admit that's reading the tea leaves to quite an extent, but I correctly predicted the Russian invasion of Ukraine in November 2021 while many people were telling me it would never happen. I have a pretty good track record at this kind of prediction, so I see the risk of staying as too high. If I was there and conflict began, I wouldn't be able to keep teaching as normal and wouldn't be able to do anything to help. If I win this election the year, I may still not be able to do much, but I have more chance of making a difference than if I stayed home. A credible actor to talk with, someone that government officials in China trusted with teaching their own children, could make a difference. Lord knows the Trump administration can't play that role by themselves.

A Bipolar World (again)

America seems to have forgotten the logic of how to live in a world with other superpowers. After 1990, we began throwing our weight around and demanding concessions diplomatically, economically, even militarily. In exchange for America's advanced technology, access to our market, and investment capital, countries were mostly willing to meet our demands. We were also unrestrained in the use of military force on those who wouldn't meet them. Our failures were largely our own fault rather than an adversary's. Trump's foreign policy now is a continuation of that behavior; demanding tribute from those that still wish to remain in our good graces.

We can't continue like this, we need to accept that China is now a superpower equivalent to us and return to a logic more similar to the cold war. In great power competition, we must show generosity to our would-be allies in order to keep them from becoming our foes. The more we try to extract concessions from other countries instead of engage in mutually beneficial policy, the more we push them into China's arms. This part of the cold war's logic is sound and the longer it takes us to relearn that lesson the worse off America will be.

On the other hand, I oppose the cold embrace of real politik justifying alliances with any government regardless of their immorality. Millions of people died around the world in the first cold war because we simply couldn't stand to lose anywhere at anytime. We sponsored death squads, bombed civilians, armed terrorists and more in conflicts that served practically no strategic purpose other than the appearance of winning. Thankfully we no longer need to choose between our principles and our advantage: in the internet age, an immoral army has no chance of winning over public opinion. One need look no further than America's support of Israel the last few years to see that. We must start standing up for an international order that other countries want to be a part of again.

Reciprocity in trade

America has long accepted large asymmetries in trade policies with China under the theory of specialization. Economists say that individual countries specializing in different aspects leads to better overall results. For smaller countries with fewer people and resources, that analysis is probably sufficient. However, countries as large and diverse as US and China can't help but be invested in most economic sectors anyways, and we feel the hollowing of any one of them such as the loss of manufacturing in the U.S.

Trump's approach to the trade war was to try to deal with China the same way as other countries around the world, and issue tariff and trade policy updates sporadically to gain an upper-hand. That doesn't work because China's command economy allows them to issue new strategic policy whenever they want with no pushback, while the U.S. system will always be slower and more deliberative, resulting in us always being too slow to adapt. What we should do instead is establish a rule of law system with automatic measures that are intended to mirror the trade policies China makes that are intended to be asymmetric.

What that would look like is automatic tit-for-tat moves: they ban American social media companies, then we ban Chinese social media companies. They launch cyberwarfare attacks on us, then we launch proportionate cyberattacks back. If they require technology transfer of intellectual property to do business there, we can require the technology transfer of intellectual property here. When they try to steal that IP, as happened in Sedalia in 2013, we can retaliate against the businesses engaged in these crimes, not just the individuals. This also provides the natural framework for mutual de-escalation: whatever actions they cease towards us, we can cease reciprocal actions towards them.

That system would be just as fast as the Republican solution of just giving the executive unilateral authority over trade, but far more predictable and less capricious for the sake of businesses trying to make long term plans and investments. It also reflects our country's belief that the system of generally free trade America created is a more fair and economically beneficial system for the world than the system of protectionism China utilized and offers as an alternative. Asymmetry is what creates the potential for one party to exploit the other. It's up to America's leaders to make that case for the American system, and the Republican retreat into nationalist imperialism only undermines our claims to being a better steward of international trade.