Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (24441)	1/16/2004 9:30:43 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793682

Trade is but one part of a complicated foreign relations equation. Trade does not stand alone and cannot be looked at so. I agree with that, and it is true not only in foreign policy, but domestic policy as well. All too often long term advantage is sacrificed for the sake of short-term political appeasement of special interest groups. There are few things in the modern political landscape that seems as absurd to me as the notion of being "opposed to globalization". That’s like living in Buffalo and being opposed to snow in January. There is a huge amount of room for legitimate debate over how globalization should be managed, but the reality is that we already live in a global economy, and that reality isn’t going to change. A nation like the US, which has economic interests in every corner of the globe, has to develop economic and trade policies that consider the long term health of the global economy as a whole. Short-sighted us-against-them policies will do us more harm than good in the long run, even if they are politically expedient in the short run. I agree with your point about clinton having a reasonable China policy. But I still believe it was a continuation of policy begun during the Nixon, Reagan, Bush China visits…I don't see where clinton initiated anything new. I agree with that. Clinton’s accomplishment in terms of China policy was less a matter of initiating anything new – nothing new was really needed – but of staying the course in the face of vocal and often hysterical opposition. Bush’s early comments about doing anything necessary to protect Taiwan were in many ways an effort to pay lip service to this same hysteria. The remarks were not necessary – the status quo posed no threat to Taiwan – and only served to encourage elements in Taiwan who want to disrupt the status quo. This would not – as the Bush administration has belatedly realized – be advantageous to the US. As a result, the administration has had to backpedal a bit, and adopt the sort of even-handed policy it should have taken in the first place. This sort of blunder is a common consequence of pretending that nuance does not exist, and of giving ideology precedence over pragmatism.