No, Ronald Reagan Didn’t Love Tariffs He wasn’t a free-trade purist, but he was nothing like Trump........... and also suffering from absurdity overload. .......... I suspect that the ad especially enraged Trump because it featured Reagan, still the Republican lodestar, making a serious, reasoned case for why tariffs are generally bad for the country. In the ad, Reagan sounded presidential and trustworthy, a sure reminder of how far the Republican party has sunk while in the grip of a grandiose, snarling, whining toddler. .......... Trump claimed that the ad was “FAKE” and that Reagan “LOVED tariffs.” ............
Reagan “was a devout champion of open trade who used tariffs sparingly and reluctantly.”
.......... Reagan did, in fact, repeatedly emphasize the virtues of free trade. Like all modern presidents, he nonetheless imposed some tariffs for political reasons. But Reagan always stayed within the boundaries of the law, using his right to impose discretionary tariffs as pressure release valves rather than abusing his authority to make tariff policy an instrument of his personal whims. ........... Reagan did many things that, I believe, harmed America. Indeed, I would argue that his tax cuts, deregulation and anti-union policies, as well as his exploitation of racial tensions, were critical in laying the foundation for the plutocracy that is now destroying our democracy. But one thing that was clear to me while working within the Reagan administration was that Reagan and his people — totally unlike Trump — took their promises to other countries seriously. If a proposed policy was in clear violation of our international agreements, it was simply out of bounds. ........... everything that Trump has done on tariffs involves breaking solemn, supposedly binding past pledges to other nations and expecting those countries to meekly go along.
An Autocracy of Dunces How stone-faced generals, Wall Street pushback, and a government shutdown may save America’s quickly declining democracy ......... If America still had a fully functioning democracy, Donald Trump’s speech Tuesday to the assembled generals would have ended his presidency. Trump treated the event like a political rally and was clearly taken aback by the refusal of the audience to applaud or laugh at his jokes. Delivering a nakedly partisan speech to a mandated assembly of military officers was a gross violation of the Hatch Act. The content —telling the officers to be ready to use force against U.S. citizens — was clearly an impeachable offense. In an earlier era, Trump’s incoherent ranting would have paved the way for his immediate removal from office under the 25th Amendment. ............... It’s clear that the decision to summon top officers from around the world to receive a lecture about “warrior ethos” from a man who installed a makeup studio at the Pentagon was made by Pete Hegseth. It confirmed publicly what is being whispered within the military, and presumably among our allies and enemies: that
Hegseth is an abject incompetent
who isn’t remotely up to the job. And this toe-curling performance is a reflection of his underlying panic. ................... authoritarian regimes don’t want competent people, who might sometimes take a stand on principle ............. They prefer crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty. ............. The same logic surely explains the appointment of the hapless Hegseth. ........... Hackification is also an important factor in the government shutdown. Democrats have made their willingness to supply the extra votes needed to keep the government open contingent on an extension of the Biden-era expansion of health insurance subsidies, which will expire at the end of this year. .............. The political puzzle is why Republicans didn’t see this coming. The One Big Beautiful Bill carefully and cynically delays big cuts to Medicaid until after the midterms. Why didn’t it include a similarly cynical delay to the looming premium apocalypse? ........... Chuck Schumer, who met with Trump Monday, said that the president appeared to be “not aware” of the impact of expiring subsidies. ............. many Republicans, like Trump, simply weren’t aware of the issue. ........... America is no longer a fully functioning democracy. ........... like all authoritarian regimes, America’s autocracy is being run by malevolent incompetents. And while our hallowed institutions are utterly failing to rise to the occasion, the sheer incompetence of these hacks is generating pushback that may yet save us. ............... the top ranks of the US military .. their stony reception of Hegseth and Trump. ....... the many Disney subscribers who canceled after the abortive attempt to fire Jimmy Kimmel. ..........
The Thucydides Trap Reimagined: How the U.S.–China Trade War Became the New Battlefield
The unfolding chapter of the U.S.–China trade war feels unlike the earlier skirmishes. This time, the escalation carries an intentional, strategic weight — a quiet but decisive move in the grand chessboard of global power realignment. While analysts once feared the “Thucydides Trap” might manifest as open warfare over Taiwan, the real confrontation may be playing out not with missiles or ships, but with tariffs, supply chains, and semiconductor bans.
A Trade War That Feels Deliberate
Previous rounds of U.S.–China trade friction — during the Trump and early Biden years — often appeared reactive: tariff for tariff, sanction for sanction. But the current turn has a different character. Beijing’s latest trade restrictions and Washington’s intensified technology containment are not spontaneous; they appear to be components of long-term strategic planning.
China, aware that its demographic slowdown and real estate crisis constrain domestic growth, seems to be reasserting its geopolitical leverage through targeted economic pressure. Its restrictions on critical minerals and export controls on drone technology or graphite are deliberate pressure points aimed at the U.S. defense and clean energy industries.
The United States, meanwhile, has hardened its position on semiconductors and AI chips, effectively attempting to slow China’s climb up the technological value chain. The once-murky line between economic and national security policy has all but disappeared. Economic tools have become instruments of deterrence — a war by other means.
Thucydides Trap, Without the Gunfire
The ancient Greek historian Thucydides observed that the Peloponnesian War was inevitable because “the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta made war unavoidable.” Today, the U.S. is Sparta, an established hegemon anxious about the challenger, while China is Athens, rising, ambitious, and increasingly assertive. But unlike the maritime empires of the past, both nations now possess nuclear deterrents and globally interwoven economies. The trap, therefore, manifests not in kinetic war, but in economic confrontation — a prolonged contest for control over supply chains, standards, and narratives.
The frontlines are digital, financial, and psychological. Instead of invading territories, the rivals are invading markets — restricting access to capital, blocking chips, and weaponizing data flows.
China’s Calculated Gamble
For Beijing, this escalation may serve multiple goals:
Domestic Legitimacy: By positioning itself as a victim of U.S. aggression, the Chinese government strengthens nationalist sentiment during an economically uncertain period.
Strategic Diversification: China is accelerating trade with the Global South, building alternative payment systems, and hedging against dollar dependence.
Technological Independence: The trade war, ironically, has become an incubator for Chinese self-reliance — a national sprint toward indigenous chipmaking, electric vehicles, and AI platforms.
China may well be signaling that it prefers a trade confrontation now, while its industrial leverage remains significant, rather than later, when U.S.-led decoupling might weaken it.
The American Response — and the Supreme Court’s Role
The irony of Trump’s tariffs — maintained in various forms by subsequent administrations — is that they function as a hidden tax on American consumers. Tariffs raise prices on imported goods, feeding inflation while providing only modest protection for domestic industries. Yet politically, they play well across both parties as symbols of toughness on China.
However, with Beijing’s latest retaliatory measures and the growing economic strain on U.S. supply chains, legal and institutional challenges to the tariff regime are gaining traction. The U.S. Supreme Court, long cautious on trade policy, may now find new constitutional and economic rationale to strike down or limit the executive’s tariff powers. If the Court acts, it would not only rebalance the trade dynamic but also reaffirm the principle that tariff policy cannot become an unchecked instrument of political theater.
The Silver Lining
In an odd twist, China’s latest actions might provide the very political and judicial momentum needed for the U.S. to reform its own trade policy. A Supreme Court decision curbing presidential tariff powers would signal a return to more rules-based global trade — a reaffirmation of America’s constitutional checks and balances in the economic arena.
It could also mark the beginning of a new phase: one where competition between the two giants focuses less on punitive tariffs and more on innovation, partnerships, and standards-setting in emerging technologies.
Conclusion: The Trap May Yet Be Escapable
If this is the Thucydides Trap reimagined — a war of tariffs instead of troops — then the world may have reason for cautious optimism. Economic pain, while serious, is reversible; war is not. Both Washington and Beijing understand that open conflict would destroy the prosperity that underpins their power.
The trade war, then, may be the modern equivalent of the “cold peace” — a way to compete fiercely without crossing the Rubicon. But for that equilibrium to hold, the United States must not mistake populist tariffs for strategy, and China must resist the temptation to weaponize its economic dependencies too far.
History, as Thucydides warned, is shaped not just by power, but by fear. The challenge before both nations is whether they can transform that fear into wisdom before economic confrontation gives way to something far more dangerous.
थ्यूसीडिडीज़ का नया जाल: कैसे अमेरिका–चीन व्यापार युद्ध बन गया नया रणक्षेत्र
अमेरिका और चीन के बीच चल रहा वर्तमान व्यापार युद्ध पहले के मुकाबले अलग महसूस होता है। इस बार यह टकराव ज़्यादा योजनाबद्ध और जानबूझकर किया गया लगता है — वैश्विक शक्ति-संतुलन की शतरंज की बिसात पर एक सोचा-समझा दांव।
जहाँ विशेषज्ञों को डर था कि “थ्यूसीडिडीज़ ट्रैप” (Thucydides Trap) का परिणाम ताइवान में युद्ध के रूप में दिखेगा, शायद उसका असली रूप एक व्यापार युद्ध ही है — जो बिना गोलियों के, लेकिन उतना ही निर्णायक है।
एक योजनाबद्ध व्यापार युद्ध
पहले दौर के अमेरिकी-चीनी व्यापार संघर्ष — ट्रंप और शुरुआती बाइडेन दौर में — ज़्यादातर प्रतिक्रिया-आधारित लगते थे: एक तरफ से टैरिफ, तो दूसरी तरफ से पलटवार। लेकिन आज का परिदृश्य अलग है। बीजिंग की नई व्यापार सीमाएँ और वॉशिंगटन की तकनीकी नीतियाँ लंबी अवधि की रणनीति का हिस्सा प्रतीत होती हैं।
चीन, जिसे जनसंख्या में गिरावट और रियल एस्टेट संकट ने धीमा कर दिया है, अब अपनी ताकत का प्रदर्शन आर्थिक दबाव के माध्यम से कर रहा है। उसने ग्रेफाइट, ड्रोन टेक्नोलॉजी और दुर्लभ खनिजों पर निर्यात नियंत्रण लगाकर अमेरिका की रक्षा और ऊर्जा आपूर्ति को निशाना बनाया है।
वहीं अमेरिका ने सेमीकंडक्टर और एआई चिप्स पर प्रतिबंध बढ़ाकर चीन की तकनीकी उन्नति को रोकने की कोशिश की है। अब अर्थनीति और राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा के बीच की रेखा मिट चुकी है — आर्थिक उपकरण अब हथियार बन चुके हैं।
थ्यूसीडिडीज़ ट्रैप, बिना बंदूक के
यूनानी इतिहासकार थ्यूसीडिडीज़ ने कहा था कि “एथेंस के उदय और उससे उत्पन्न भय ने स्पार्टा को युद्ध के लिए मजबूर किया।”
आज की दुनिया में अमेरिका स्पार्टा है — पुराना प्रभुत्वशाली शक्ति — और चीन एथेंस — उभरता हुआ प्रतिद्वंद्वी।
पर अब युद्ध परमाणु और परस्पर जुड़ी अर्थव्यवस्थाओं के युग में हो रहा है, इसलिए संघर्ष का स्वरूप बदल गया है।
यह अब टैंकों या जहाज़ों से नहीं, बल्कि सप्लाई चेन, निवेश, और डेटा नियंत्रण से लड़ा जा रहा है।
युद्ध के मोर्चे अब डिजिटल और वित्तीय हैं। दोनों देश क्षेत्रों पर कब्ज़ा नहीं कर रहे, बल्कि बाज़ारों और तकनीकी मानकों पर कब्ज़े के लिए लड़ रहे हैं।
चीन की सोची-समझी चाल
बीजिंग के लिए यह संघर्ष कई उद्देश्यों को पूरा करता है:
घरेलू वैधता: अमेरिकी दबाव को दिखाकर चीनी जनता में राष्ट्रवादी भावनाओं को मज़बूत करना।
रणनीतिक विविधीकरण: डॉलर निर्भरता से बचते हुए ग्लोबल साउथ देशों के साथ व्यापार बढ़ाना।
तकनीकी आत्मनिर्भरता: व्यापार युद्ध ने “मेड इन चाइना” तकनीकी अभियान को गति दी है — अब चीन अपने खुद के चिप, ईवी और एआई प्लेटफॉर्म बना रहा है।
यह संभव है कि चीन यह युद्ध अभी इसलिए चाहता है क्योंकि फिलहाल उसके पास कुछ आर्थिक दबाव के पत्ते बचे हैं — बाद में शायद नहीं।
अमेरिका की प्रतिक्रिया — और सुप्रीम कोर्ट की भूमिका
ट्रंप के टैरिफ — जिन्हें बाद की सरकारों ने भी बनाए रखा — असल में अमेरिकी उपभोक्ताओं पर टैक्स की तरह हैं। ये आयातित वस्तुओं की कीमतें बढ़ाते हैं और महंगाई को बढ़ावा देते हैं, जबकि घरेलू उद्योगों को सीमित लाभ मिलता है।
फिर भी, राजनीतिक रूप से यह कदम दोनों पार्टियों में लोकप्रिय है क्योंकि यह “चीन पर सख्ती” का प्रतीक है।
अब, जब चीन ने पलटवार किया है और अमेरिकी सप्लाई चेन पर असर पड़ रहा है, तो इन टैरिफ़ों के खिलाफ कानूनी चुनौती बढ़ रही है।
अमेरिकी सुप्रीम कोर्ट अब यह तय कर सकता है कि राष्ट्रपति को टैरिफ लगाने की असीमित शक्ति देना संवैधानिक है या नहीं।
यदि कोर्ट इसे अवैध या सीमित कर देता है, तो यह न केवल व्यापार नीति में सुधार होगा बल्कि अमेरिकी लोकतंत्र में शक्ति-संतुलन की पुनः पुष्टि भी होगी।
चांदी की परत (Silver Lining)
विडंबना यह है कि चीन के हालिया कदम अमेरिका को स्वयं-सुधार का अवसर दे सकते हैं।
अगर सुप्रीम कोर्ट राष्ट्रपति की टैरिफ़ शक्तियों को सीमित करता है, तो यह न केवल अमेरिकी उपभोक्ताओं के लिए राहत होगी बल्कि वैश्विक व्यापार प्रणाली में भी स्थिरता लाएगा।
यह दोनों देशों को उस दिशा में धकेल सकता है जहाँ प्रतिस्पर्धा टैरिफ़ से नहीं, बल्कि नवाचार और तकनीकी मानकों के ज़रिए होगी।
निष्कर्ष: शायद यह जाल अभी भी टाला जा सकता है
यदि यह “थ्यूसीडिडीज़ ट्रैप” का नया रूप है — टैरिफ़ों का युद्ध, न कि टैंकों का — तो दुनिया को थोड़ी राहत मिल सकती है।
आर्थिक नुकसान गंभीर होता है, लेकिन उसे सुधारा जा सकता है; जबकि युद्ध विनाशकारी होता है।
दोनों देश समझते हैं कि खुला युद्ध उनकी आर्थिक समृद्धि को ही नष्ट करेगा। इसलिए यह व्यापार युद्ध एक ‘कोल्ड पीस’ (Cold Peace) का रूप ले सकता है — जहाँ प्रतिस्पर्धा जारी रहती है, लेकिन युद्ध नहीं होता।
लेकिन यह संतुलन तभी टिकेगा जब अमेरिका लोकप्रिय टैरिफ़ों को रणनीति न समझे, और चीन अपनी आर्थिक निर्भरता को हथियार न बनाए।
इतिहास ने सिखाया है कि भय शक्ति से बड़ा प्रेरक होता है — और सवाल यह है कि क्या अमेरिका और चीन इस भय को बुद्धिमत्ता में बदल पाएँगे, इससे पहले कि यह आर्थिक युद्ध किसी और, कहीं ज़्यादा ख़तरनाक रूप में फट पड़े।
