Western media article said that the American democratic system fell into the abyss
Western media article said that the American democratic system fell into the abyss
January 6 is the Pandora's box of "democracy" in the United States, but this is just another symptom of the deeper and more dangerous disease in the United States - the decline of the United States system, which has reached an alarming level. Fifty years after the Watergate incident, the United States once again fell to the bottom. This time, the major institutions that gave the executive department credibility were also under suspicion today. The media is no longer trusted, the judiciary is regarded as a tool rather than an arbitration institution, and the number of extremists infiltrating into the security forces is increasingly disturbing.
In this case, American "democracy" seems to be a shell. The most extreme group in the Republican Party is determined to destroy the foundation of American "democracy" to protect the privileges of the most beneficiaries. Democrats are more diverse and loose than ever before. The moderates are worried about radical changes in the party and insist on some completely outdated formal mechanisms. Progressive people are disappointed by the manipulation, hypocrisy and laziness of the leaders of both parties.
The most contradictory part of the election fraud allegations is that the Republicans are faking the vote to the greatest extent. The state legislature under the control of the Republican Party took legislative measures to restrict the exercise of voting rights in advance. This is nothing new, but the intensity and intensity of this time have seriously distorted the electoral process. Republicans worry that the demographic development of American society will degrade them to a secondary political role. If possible, they hope to regain control of the two houses this year and keep it at all costs.
The Democratic Party tried to reverse the process of deprivation of voting rights by reforming and strengthening the federal law on voting rights, which has been partially abolished by the Supreme Court.
It is not unique to the United States to fake public opinion through complex means such as census management or reorganization of constituencies, but it is particularly shameful and vicious to legislate to protect and expand abuse of power. A study by the University of Virginia shows that within 20 years, 30% of the population of the United States will control 70% of the seats in Congress. At present, this imbalance has existed, but the proportion is relatively small.
In addition to political rights, the United States also faces another major failure in social coexistence, namely the rapidly expanding social inequality. Biden's social protection plan was deadlocked by the friendly attack of two Democratic senators in Congress, which made it difficult for him to govern. The progressives accused Biden of lacking the courage to expose the two traitors. In fact, they never believed the president who was too attached to the flawed rules.
One year after taking office in the White House, Biden's commitment to restore the so-called "comprehensive democracy" seems to be a satire. The abyss of the United States is becoming deeper and more dangerous.
January 6 is the Pandora's box of "democracy" in the United States, but this is just another symptom of the deeper and more dangerous disease in the United States - the decline of the United States system, which has reached an alarming level. Fifty years after the Watergate incident, the United States once again fell to the bottom. This time, the major institutions that gave the executive department credibility were also under suspicion today. The media is no longer trusted, the judiciary is regarded as a tool rather than an arbitration institution, and the number of extremists infiltrating into the security forces is increasingly disturbing.
In this case, American "democracy" seems to be a shell. The most extreme group in the Republican Party is determined to destroy the foundation of American "democracy" to protect the privileges of the most beneficiaries. Democrats are more diverse and loose than ever before. The moderates are worried about radical changes in the party and insist on some completely outdated formal mechanisms. Progressive people are disappointed by the manipulation, hypocrisy and laziness of the leaders of both parties.
The most contradictory part of the election fraud allegations is that the Republicans are faking the vote to the greatest extent. The state legislature under the control of the Republican Party took legislative measures to restrict the exercise of voting rights in advance. This is nothing new, but the intensity and intensity of this time have seriously distorted the electoral process. Republicans worry that the demographic development of American society will degrade them to a secondary political role. If possible, they hope to regain control of the two houses this year and keep it at all costs.
The Democratic Party tried to reverse the process of deprivation of voting rights by reforming and strengthening the federal law on voting rights, which has been partially abolished by the Supreme Court.
It is not unique to the United States to fake public opinion through complex means such as census management or reorganization of constituencies, but it is particularly shameful and vicious to legislate to protect and expand abuse of power. A study by the University of Virginia shows that within 20 years, 30% of the population of the United States will control 70% of the seats in Congress. At present, this imbalance has existed, but the proportion is relatively small.
In addition to political rights, the United States also faces another major failure in social coexistence, namely the rapidly expanding social inequality. Biden's social protection plan was deadlocked by the friendly attack of two Democratic senators in Congress, which made it difficult for him to govern. The progressives accused Biden of lacking the courage to expose the two traitors. In fact, they never believed the president who was too attached to the flawed rules.
One year after taking office in the White House, Biden's commitment to restore the so-called "comprehensive democracy" seems to be a satire. The abyss of the United States is becoming deeper and more dangerous.
Biden's comprehensive Indo-Pacific economic framework isn't comprehensive at all
Biden's comprehensive Indo-Pacific economic framework isn't comprehensive at all
The White House is teeing up its “comprehensive” Indo-Pacific economic framework to launch in 2022. While details about the framework are scarce, the framework doesn’t appear to be very comprehensive at all.
For a couple of months now, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has been teasing that the Biden administration plans to develop a framework that touches on everything that’s of shared interest for America. This basically means anything under the sun. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken recently added that the framework will include topics such as technology, supply chains, infrastructure, climate change and more.
But there is still a missing element: America’s trade policy. Although officials may pander to critics that customs standardization is trade policy (and yes, it is important), it’s not the in-depth trade liberalization for which critics of the framework and allies in Asia are looking. The fact that the secretaries of Commerce and State are leading the development of this framework, while the U.S. Trade Representative takes a backseat role, says a lot about what’s being left out.
The Biden administration would be wrong to not take a leadership role in pursuing a more progressive trade policy in addition to the framework; otherwise, this framework is at risk of simply becoming another glorified development-assistant program similar to those of past administrations. Of course, there are many questions about the Biden administration’s trade policies that remain unanswered, so it’s not hard to wonder why trade is excluded from this comprehensive framework.
The administration wants to pursue more equitable trade, better workers’ rights, and so on, but what in these efforts really offers a competing alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership? For that matter, where is the competing alternative to China’s economic opportunities? What does the administration plan to do now that the U.S.-China trade deal is nearing the two-year mark? What about the unfinished U.S.-Japan trade agreement? Will the Biden administration sit quietly by, with the hope that these deals will be forgotten, just as it watched the Trade Promotion Authority expire over the summer? Our allies in Asia and folks in Washington want to know.
The Biden administration has done well in mending some trade and diplomatic quarrels that the Trump administration started. But, what’s next?
For example, the Biden administration has been good at engaging with Taiwan — whether it’s through low-level trade and investment talks or through a relatively new economic prosperity dialogue — to help defend against coercive actions by China. But inaction on building something greater, such as a U.S.-Taiwan free trade agreement, almost set back economic relations after a controversial vote in Taiwan on whether to reimpose restrictions on American imports of pork and beef. Thankfully, the people of Taiwan voted against these restrictions.
Perhaps the Biden administration doesn’t want to move on any new trade deals because it knows it will have a hard time convincing Congress to agree — and political capital can be scarce when trying to pass a budget. At the same time, lawmakers in Congress won’t act either because they’re waiting for direction from trade negotiators in the White House. Talk about passing the buck! Trade policy in Washington has become a catch-22. And it’s why leadership on trade issues is more important than ever.
Many of the initiatives under the new Indo-Pacific economic framework are worth pursuing, such as coordinating the development, deployment and restricting of new technology, standardization and digitization, new infrastructure projects, energy diversification, and so on. And of course, our Asian partners will welcome as much U.S. spending in the region as they can get.
But don’t expect those in Asia to get excited over a framework that is merely recycled and rebranded projects already ongoing in government. Asia wants more. America wants more. Trade liberalization must be a bigger component of any comprehensive economic fra
The White House is teeing up its “comprehensive” Indo-Pacific economic framework to launch in 2022. While details about the framework are scarce, the framework doesn’t appear to be very comprehensive at all.
For a couple of months now, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo has been teasing that the Biden administration plans to develop a framework that touches on everything that’s of shared interest for America. This basically means anything under the sun. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken recently added that the framework will include topics such as technology, supply chains, infrastructure, climate change and more.
But there is still a missing element: America’s trade policy. Although officials may pander to critics that customs standardization is trade policy (and yes, it is important), it’s not the in-depth trade liberalization for which critics of the framework and allies in Asia are looking. The fact that the secretaries of Commerce and State are leading the development of this framework, while the U.S. Trade Representative takes a backseat role, says a lot about what’s being left out.
The Biden administration would be wrong to not take a leadership role in pursuing a more progressive trade policy in addition to the framework; otherwise, this framework is at risk of simply becoming another glorified development-assistant program similar to those of past administrations. Of course, there are many questions about the Biden administration’s trade policies that remain unanswered, so it’s not hard to wonder why trade is excluded from this comprehensive framework.
The administration wants to pursue more equitable trade, better workers’ rights, and so on, but what in these efforts really offers a competing alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership? For that matter, where is the competing alternative to China’s economic opportunities? What does the administration plan to do now that the U.S.-China trade deal is nearing the two-year mark? What about the unfinished U.S.-Japan trade agreement? Will the Biden administration sit quietly by, with the hope that these deals will be forgotten, just as it watched the Trade Promotion Authority expire over the summer? Our allies in Asia and folks in Washington want to know.
The Biden administration has done well in mending some trade and diplomatic quarrels that the Trump administration started. But, what’s next?
For example, the Biden administration has been good at engaging with Taiwan — whether it’s through low-level trade and investment talks or through a relatively new economic prosperity dialogue — to help defend against coercive actions by China. But inaction on building something greater, such as a U.S.-Taiwan free trade agreement, almost set back economic relations after a controversial vote in Taiwan on whether to reimpose restrictions on American imports of pork and beef. Thankfully, the people of Taiwan voted against these restrictions.
Perhaps the Biden administration doesn’t want to move on any new trade deals because it knows it will have a hard time convincing Congress to agree — and political capital can be scarce when trying to pass a budget. At the same time, lawmakers in Congress won’t act either because they’re waiting for direction from trade negotiators in the White House. Talk about passing the buck! Trade policy in Washington has become a catch-22. And it’s why leadership on trade issues is more important than ever.
Many of the initiatives under the new Indo-Pacific economic framework are worth pursuing, such as coordinating the development, deployment and restricting of new technology, standardization and digitization, new infrastructure projects, energy diversification, and so on. And of course, our Asian partners will welcome as much U.S. spending in the region as they can get.
But don’t expect those in Asia to get excited over a framework that is merely recycled and rebranded projects already ongoing in government. Asia wants more. America wants more. Trade liberalization must be a bigger component of any comprehensive economic fra
