The post Covering Elections for Years, Yet US Violence Still Appalled Me first appeared on China Academy.

The post Reagan’s Advisor: Trump’s Trade War is Crippling Dollar Hegemony first appeared on China Academy.

The post World on the Brink of Nuclear War first appeared on China Academy.

Pete Hegseth, a Fox News host with military experience but a background primarily in junior officer roles in the U.S. Army, has been nominated for a potential future position as Secretary of Defense, also sparking controversy.

All attention is now focused on the cabinet picks. Before diving into an analysis of these nominations, it’s worth noting something important: the dense wave of announcements about these appointments is closely tied to, or perhaps has a subtle connection with, another piece of information.

Trump’s Typical Focus Guidance Trick

After Trump was elected, he made several nominations and then did something else—he reportedly called Russian President Vladimir Putin. At least, his team used certain sources to inform mainstream outlets like The Washington Post and Reuters, suggesting that Trump had already spoken with Putin and discussed plans related to his biggest policy promise: ending the Russia-Ukraine conflict within 24 hours of taking office. However, the situation took a dramatic turn when the Kremlin issued a rare and direct denial.

While observers eagerly speculated on how Trump might respond, the news emerging from Mar-a-Lago—regarded by some as a power hub akin to “Winterfell” or “King’s Landing” in Game of Thrones—did not include any direct statements addressing the Russia-Ukraine conflict or Putin’s sharp rebuff. Instead, a series of dramatic and impactful announcements stole the spotlight, particularly the establishment of the “Department of Government Efficiency” and other key cabinet picks.

From an observational standpoint, if members of Trump’s team had not leaked to the media that he had spoken with Putin, no one would have known that Trump had possibly faced a setback. This reflects a quintessential Trump diplomatic or policy style: he consistently tries to direct your attention, guiding it where he wants it to go. By steering your focus, he shapes the message or perception he aims to convey, maximizing the image of his capabilities and highlighting his strengths. He works to ensure that you don’t see his failures, or even recognize that he has ever encountered any, ultimately crafting and promoting his idealized persona.

A Brief Introduction to the U.S. President’s Cabinet

The U.S. Constitution clearly states that, within the framework of the separation of powers, the president exercises executive authority and has the right to enlist others to help him, as he is not a deity. The people who assist him are generally divided into two groups. One group is within the White House itself, including his office staff, chief of staff, and those who work closely with the president, forming what is known as the Executive Office of the President (EOP).

The largest office under the EOP is likely the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). As the name suggests, its role is to oversee staffing and review budgets. The people working in the OMB are directly involved with the president, providing support and services on a day-to-day basis. Because of their close working relationship with the president, these appointments do not require Senate confirmation.

At the same time, because the nation’s affairs are vast, the president has the authority to appoint specialized individuals to oversee specific departments, such as handling military issues, foreign diplomacy, business practices, trade, commerce, and finance. This is where the concept of “departments” comes into play. These ministerial-level officials collectively form the “President’s Cabinet,” often referred to simply as “the Cabinet.” These Cabinet members, as politically appointed officials at the ministerial level, are required to undergo confirmation hearings in the Senate.

Trump’s Principle for His Second Term: Loyalty First

Trump has made it clear that he expects the Senate to provide a mechanism for making appointments during its recess, allowing his nominations to be confirmed even when the Senate is not in session. Of course, according to subsequent procedures, once the Senate reconvenes, the appointments still need to go through the appropriate process. However, Trump’s point is that his nominations should not be obstructed.

From his appointments this time, we can discern a few key points: First, Trump has clearly demonstrated a core lesson or experience he learned during his first term: he firmly believes that the people he appointed must be reliable, with loyalty as the primary requirement. The measure of loyalty? It’s determined by their attitude toward the Democratic Party and, most importantly, their attitude toward Trump himself.

Trump has continued to firmly believe that he did not actually lose and regrets leaving the White House in 2020. Using his own words, the standard for testing loyalty is whether during the four years he was away, individuals stood steadfastly by him on key issues, whether they accepted the view that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” by the Democrats, and whether they defended Trump resolutely on this major, consequential issue in significant public forums.

When the Democrats initiated legal actions against Trump, the measure of loyalty became whether individuals defended him in each major case, particularly the one involving classified national documents. This includes whether they offered strong defense based on a firm belief in Trump and loyalty to him and whether they publicly expressed their support or viewpoints.

Additionally, throughout the 2024 presidential election process, the test of loyalty is whether they provided substantial help to Trump, gave unwavering political backing, and offered solid economic support.

If individuals meet these criteria, they will earn Trump’s admiration and be appointed. Based on the current appointments, these individuals can generally be divided into three categories: The first category is the loyal, hardworking employees, like White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. These are people who have diligently worked behind the scenes for a long time, earning Trump’s trust and forming a strong working relationship with him. They are also capable of filling in gaps in Trump’s skill set, but they are never arrogant or seek to steal the spotlight in the media or from Trump.

The second category includes those in Cabinet-level positions, with Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host, being a prime example of this. Trump appointed him as Secretary of Defense at Truth Media. For Trump, loyalty is paramount, and ideally, the person has little to no expertise. What he seeks is a blank slate and a sounding board. Trump-style conservatives often interpret the Constitution in a literal, word-for-word manner, believing that all matters ultimately fall under the president’s domain. Trump’s approach is simple: “Nobody knows anything better than me. My team doesn’t need to be experts, I’m the one who knows. What do my team members need? Loyalty and obedience.”

Loyalty means standing firmly by his side politically, being bound to him—you cannot jump ship or stab him in the back. Not understanding the business is seen as an advantage, not a weakness. What does it mean to lack expertise or have limited experience? It means you have no roots in the system, and there’s no possibility of you betraying him. You don’t need to ask questions or know everything; he will tell you how to do it, and all you need to do is execute.

Understand and execute as instructed; if you don’t understand, you’ll understand through execution. If the execution is done well, it means Trump was right. If it’s done poorly, it means the execution was flawed. This logic is powerful, and many people in history have used it, though the outcomes often weren’t great. But Trump is different—he believes he is the chosen one, and who knows, maybe he’ll succeed after all.

DOGE’s Role and Likely Operation Model

The third category includes figures like Elon Musk and the DOGE. Although the name contains the word “department,” it may not actually be a department; it’s more likely to function as a commission or a task force. The most probable way it will operate is under the EOP, or in close collaboration with the OMB. While these initiatives may seem fragmented or like a “strategic salad,” they are not merely a jumble of words—they are, in fact, grounded in logic. Trump has repeatedly mentioned the “unstable government efficiency,” observing and auditing it from outside the traditional government framework.

Elon Musk has stated that their goal is to identify and expose the “stupid budgets,” “stupid arrangements,” and “stupid people,” ranking them and posting the results online for public condemnation, in order to highlight just how dysfunctional the government is. So, if things go as expected, this “department” will likely be an external commission focused primarily on investigative work and holding hearings. It’s possible that all 15 federal agencies will undergo such investigations and hearings, resulting in a report that identifies problems within each department. While this sounds like a massive undertaking, the truth is that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has always been doing this type of work—auditing the functions of government agencies, assessing waste, and identifying areas for efficiency improvement. The difference now is that, while such audits used to be in a “better than nothing” state, Trump is now openly aiming to “drain the swamp” in this manner.

To put it more bluntly, the “Department of Government Efficiency” that Musk represents is likely to spark an unintentional political movement in Washington, potentially turning into a storm that sweeps across all 15 federal agencies. An interesting point is that Trump has brought together Indian-American Republican Vivek Ramaswamy (whom he faced off against during the presidential campaign) and Musk. Here’s the thing: unless Ramaswamy decides not to run for Congress, once this new department is established, he won’t be able to continue holding a congressional seat. He can’t hold two positions at the same time.

If the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” were a formal administrative department like the Department of Defense or the Department of Treasury, Ramaswamy would have to leave the legislative branch to take a role in the executive branch. However, if it functions as a commission, there wouldn’t be any issue. If the department’s primary operation involves congressional hearings or committee investigations, Ramaswamy’s position as a member of Congress could actually enhance his effectiveness in that role, giving him a unique advantage in influencing the process.

Objectively speaking, the issue most likely to create enemies is the government efficiency audit. On one hand, Musk could become the second center of power within the team, after Trump. On the other hand, a young Indian-American congressman, who showed significant potential during the primaries, has also been pushed to the forefront. It’s well known that Indian-Americans often demonstrate unique strengths in navigating internal power dynamics within government organizations, giving them a relative advantage. This arrangement is quite intriguing and certainly worth closer observation as it unfolds.

Trump’s Second Term Will Bring About Uncertainty Beyond Imagination

Overall, the defining characteristic of Trump’s second term seems to be a bold, aggressive approach, encapsulated in a large, capitalized “recklessness.” In terms of personnel appointments, choosing candidates, and expressing his ideas, we see a Trump who is driven by a sense of urgency, believing that time is of the essence. He seems to be streaking, confidently convinced that he is on the only correct and effective path to save the U.S. empire and preserve its global dominance.

Of course, we can also see that the media’s portrayal of an idealized version of Trump’s second term—such as the myth that he has a fully formed team—has been shattered. In reality, Trump doesn’t have a cohesive team. He struggles to find individuals who are both politically trustworthy and capable enough to handle complex issues at the Cabinet level within federal administration. People with those qualities are extremely rare. This problem was already evident in his first term, though at that time, one could argue he was a political outsider. Now, we see Washington elites continuing to distance themselves from Trump in various ways, and the consequences of this are highly unpredictable and uncertain.

It won’t be long before these impacts unfold in dramatic and visually striking ways, and it will be worth paying close attention to. But we must remember, at all times, not to panic or be overwhelmed by the media fragments. These patterns won’t change just because it’s Trump—if you don’t believe it, just wait and see.

The post Reckless! – Chinese Scholar on Trump’s Cabinet Picks first appeared on China Academy.

They not only care about the current president but also about past presidents. While the American people are busy choosing their next president, users on China’s version of Quora, “Zhihu,” have selected “the worst U.S. president of the past 30 years.”

It’s hard to imagine that, after years of trade wars, comments giving high praise to Trump have received over 6,000 likes. Chinese netizens, though driven by a unsurpressible desire to express themselves, still managed to apply a rigorous analytical attitude in answering the question: should it be considered from a Chinese perspective or an American one? They also try to get to the bottom of the issue when a president is voted “bad”: Is it due to the president’s own actions, or is it a reflection of the country’s fortunes?

The question, “who is America’s worst president in the past 30 years”, has garnered 4.7 million views. Based on the 270 responses it elicited, Chinese netizens overwhelmingly see George W. Bush as the worst American president, followed closely by Obama and Reagan. Clinton comes in fourth, while Biden and Trump compete for fifth and sixth places.

Below are the most liked comments :

No 6. Biden

Biden

@Buliwyf (40 likes)

Clinton gives off the vibe of a suave lawyer (before his scandals,

Bush of an uneducated cowboy and soldier,

Obama of a smooth-talking scholar,

and Trump of a redneck teenager who’s smoked too much weed.

But Biden comes across as an old relic who could easily end up on a wall.

The president actually has little influence over the country’s overall direction, cannot bypass Congress, and cannot argue too much even with his own party.

The establishment controls Congress, while big capitalists control the establishment. What we see as U.S. foreign policy—such as the global harvesting that began after the Soviet Union collapsed, using military force to discipline dissenters, giving military-industrial capitalists large contracts, seizing oil resources around the world, and using administrative and legal tools to clear the path for U.S. capital globally—are all the results of countless discussions, negotiations, and compromises directed by numerous capitalists behind the scenes, influencing both the Republican and Democratic parties.

These are certainly not things that a president can decide or stop.

To evaluate a president’s performance, we can only look at their micro-management skills and image. Clearly, Biden is the worst; even if the others are lacking, they still make being the President of the United States seem like the pinnacle of a human life.

Biden’s shortcomings:

First, his physical condition is such that he should be assigned specialized caregivers in a nursing home, yet he was still elected president, leading the world to think, “Is this what a U.S. president is like?”

Second, he kneels everywhere, to the point that the entire world questions whether he is truly the president or in fact a culprit.

Third, his language skills, especially when compared to George W. Bush, make them seem like a pair of unlikely leaders.

Fourth, his micro-management abilities in governance are evident in the withdrawal from Afghanistan, which highlights his foreign and military policy levels. His pitiful posture of kneeling everywhere proves his domestic governance capabilities—if he had a solution, why kneel?

No. 5 Trump

Trump

@京中产鸡毛信(39 likes)

Without a doubt, the worst president in the U.S. in the past 30 years is Trump, because he shattered the foundation of America’s dominance in the world.

1、 It’s not like the U.S. has never been defeated in wars. It has, such as the Vietnam War and the Korean War. BUt these defeats didn’t undermine America’s hegemony. Therefore, George W. Bush shoudn’t be tagged a bad president, and neither should his father.

2、It’s not like the U.S. has never elected an incompetent president. It has. Look at Hoover, Carter, and an elderly Reagan, among many others.A single incompetent president cannot destroy the United States, so nearly eighty-year-old Biden shoudn’t be tagged a bad president.

3、 It’s not like the U.S. has never witnessed societal movements, as it does now with the LGBT rights, civil rights, and populist liberalism. Early women’s movements, the Martin Luther King civil rights movement, and the sexual liberation movement of the 1970s were much more influential than the movements today.

The U.S. has also encountered large-scale fiscal deficits and financial crises before; the economic depression of the 1920s and 1930s was worse than what we see now.

Confrontation and engaging in a cold war with other countries have actually been the U.S.’s forte for over two hundred years, and strategists in the Oval Office have always operated this way.

Therefore, Obama, who was obssessed with advancing civil rights but struggled with the economy, shouldn’t be tagged as  a bad president, nor should Clinton, who confronted China.

So why do I consider Trump the worst president?

Because he offended every country in the world, including America’s allies, over a mere few hundred billion in trade deficits. Without Western allies, the U.S. is nothing.

He stripped away the fig leaf of American democracy by attacking American liberalism, the establishment, and the media, calling American media “fake news,” criticizing the establishment, berating immigrants, labeling South America as a “shithole,” insulting France, belittling Canada for being weak, and attacking Germany…

After losing the election, he refused to leave, allowing a group of populists to storm the Capitol—a first in two hundred years of American history.

American democracy, media, and the spirit of freedom lost their credibility worldwide; the U.S. is no longer the beacon for oppressed peoples, immigrants, and talented individuals globally.

After Trump, America is no longer America; it may take ten Bidens to make up for it.

No. 4 Clinton

Clinton

@天天都很困 (728 likes)

Clinton.

The end of the Cold War provided the best timing to build a community with a shared future for humanity. The US was viewed as a beacon by the former Soviet republics, Eastern Europe, or us. The U.S. was provided an oportunity to lead all of humanity.

Instead, under Clinton’s leadership, the U.S. not only failed to take on the responsibility of being a beacon but also continuously exploited other countries and even its own citizens. He likely bears a significant part of the blame for 9/11.

After his eight years in office, the U.S. gained a multitude of enemies, fostered a new class of wealthy elites, and created a greedy Clinton family.

No. 3 Reagan

Reagan

@李建秋 (2833 likes)

The decline of America began with Reagan; and subsequent presidents have all been busy remedying his faults.

Reagan’s policies inevitably led to increasing wealth inequality and the outsourcing of manufacturing. This growing inequality brought about a decrease in overall societal demand, which ultimately means that even capitalists can’t make money either.

Reagan implemented two policies to cover up this issue. The first was the promotion of the so-called trickle-down theory, which is now largely debunked. The second was to increase government spending, resulting in a massive rise in debt.

(Note from the editor: “Trickle-down theory” believes that tax cuts for the wealthy or support to businesses stimlate overall economic growth, hence benefiting all social classes.)

Now, even supporters of Reagan have to admit that the fiscal spending and debt during his era were “minor flaws.” In reality, this was not a “minor flaw”; it was a significant defect.

Let’s take an example. Everyone knows about the so-called “Laffer Curve,” which claims that tax cuts will increase government revenue—this is pure nonsense. Take the major tax cut of 1981; did it stimulate the economy? Just look at the GDP growth rate in the U.S. for 1982: -1.8%. This is the kind of “good result” that Reagan produced.

Now, looking at the debt, before Reagan took office, the U.S. was the world’s largest creditor. By the time he left office, the U.S. had become the largest debtor nation. Reagan claimed he would cut taxes to increase government revenue and also promote a “small government.” So why did U.S. debt increase so much?

There are many lies involved here. If you look at spending during the Reagan era, defense and highway spending surged. Is this what you call a “small government”? Which “small government” increases government spending?

Since 1980, military expenditures have significantly increased.

While some people praised Reagan for his cutbacks to the welfare system, I find it preposterous.If the government really needed to tighten its budget, I wouldn’t have much to say about cutting expenses. But to cut welfare spending on one hand while increasing military spending on the other? The U.S. ended up with a budget deficit anyway.

Isn’t that just taking food away from the poor and handing it over to the military-industrial complex? What’s there to brag about?

Any government spending directly impacts the economy. During Reagan’s era, government spending soared—note that this is based on fiscal years, not the years of the president’s term.

Here’s a table:

The categories are: Revenue, Spending, and Surplus/Deficit, with units in billions. It indicates that all surpluses were negative.

Now, let’s compare this to the Clinton era:

See that? From 1998 to 2001, during Clinton’s presidency, the figures were positive. Have you ever seen the U.S. government have a surplus? Only during Clinton’s time did that happen.

If you examine the numbers closely, you’ll find that many lies simply cannot withstand scrutiny.

Starting from the Reagan era, America introduced a new skill that later became widely applied.

Logically, under conditions of increasing wealth inequality, capitalists’ incomes should decline due to insufficient overall demand—after all, who are they selling their products to?

But it’s okay, because Reagan invented a new method: by increasing national debt, capitalists’ incomes could still increase.

If you feel the table isn’t intuitive enough, no worries—this chart makes it clear at a glance.

Some people argue that “people at the time didn’t know the consequences of Reagan’s policies.” But how could they not know?

George H.W. Bush was very clear about it: he called it “voodoo economics.” Later, he denied it, likely because he was vice president at the time.

In reality, people were aware of the consequences; it’s just that, as politicians, there were certain things they couldn’t say openly.

No 2 Obama

Obama

@沙羡君(1257 likes)

I consider Obama the worst American president.

Due to political correctness, the United States rarely criticizes its first black president.

For Obama, the first question we need to ask is: Is he black? In fact, apart from having a black father who left after he was two, Obama had little to do with black people during other times. Obama’s mother, in fact, comes from a very prestigious family background. She comes from an American political family and is a genuine “blue blood aristocrat”.

Since then, Obama has been dealing with white elites and receiving education from them.

Obama’s presidency was merely a form of comfort for Black people. His policy is also like this, superficially granting equal status to Black people, but in reality, has the status of black people really improved?

Let me not mention the Freud incident in the Trump era, but the Ferguson incident in the Obama era is also a very influential thing, right? African Americans in the United States had opened their arms to the first president they thought could speak for them, but in reality nothing changed.

And many of the policies implemented during the Obama era have left a lasting legacy to this day. For example, the most famous gender equality movements, such as feminist equality, LGBTQ+equality, and so on, are not really aimed at improving the status of these groups, but rather at turning them into a form of political correctness. You may eliminate discrimination on the lips, but you can’t eliminate it in the heart.

Then talk about his Medicare. Does it really benefit Americans? Based on how the United States fared during the pandemic, I really don’t know what changes his healthcare policy has made.

And for his diplomacy, it’s even more disliked. The Asia Pacific rebalancing strategy has offended China, which also requires the American people to pay the price. After all, you need to pay more resources to invest in the arms race with China. Everyone in Trump knows that if America wants to be great again, it first needs to cut military spending and so on. It can be said that Obama has completely led the political situation in the United States to a dead end.

No. 1 George W. Bush

George W. Bush

@百答通(1998 likes)

Without a doubt, it’s George W. Bush.

First, two points must be clarified:

1、We need to consider this question from the perspective of Americans. For example, I think George W. Bush is the worst president (from an American perspective), but the best president (from a Chinese perspective).

2、We must consider the state of America when he took office. We should see whether he messed up a prosperous America or made things worse during a downturn.

So, I disagree with the claim that Ronald Reagan is the worst. What kind of America did he inherit when he took office? He took over during the long-term stagflation of the 1970s, with powerful unions, a trade deficit against Germany and Japan, slow technological progress, and the old adversary, the Soviet Union, at its peak. It seemed like global communism was inevitable. America’s image had fallen to rock bottom due to the Vietnam War, and allies were not genuinely aligned. The petrodollar system had just been established and lacked credibility. At that time, the priority was survival—reviving the economy was critical, not worrying about whether America would face deindustrialization or an enormous national debt in 30 years.

It’s like when you’re about to starve; your first concern is to fill your belly, not to worry about whether you’ll develop diabetes or high blood pressure from overeating 30 years later. If someone ends up overweight because they overindulged later on, that’s their responsibility, and it has nothing to do with your need to eat when you were starving.

Without a doubt, Reagan is the greatest president of the past 40 years if you consider it from the perspective of Americans. In fact, this is something nearly all Americans agree on—don’t assume you know America better than Americans themselves.

At this point, let’s take a look at the America that Bush inherited.

For nearly half a century, there had been very few instances of budget surpluses, and this was during four consecutive years. After the collapse of its old rival, the Soviet Union, the U.S. experienced significant decline. Japan, once threatening to “buy out America,” suffered through a decade of stagnation after its bubble burst. China, having endured various humiliations, remained silent. The new technological revolution, represented by the internet, was leading the world, and the oil-dollar-debt system was being thoroughly promoted globally, allowing the U.S. to exploit resources worldwide. Several wars demonstrated America’s military might, causing all its allies to bow down.

The last four years of the Clinton administration were among the rare times of U.S. budget surpluses.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that at that time, America had both money and prestige; it was a period of great opportunity.

The challenges faced by subsequent presidents—like inadequate infrastructure, hollowing out of industries, Wall Street’s greed, serious budget deficits, heavy reliance on printing money and issuing bonds, diminishing confidence in the dollar, the rise of China, a gradually assertive Europe, and a resurgent Russia—none of these problems had became insurmountable as it did later on; he was in the best position to address these issues.

So what did he do?

He fought two wars, spent trillions of dollars, and set a precedent for unlimited money printing and national debt. Although the deficit soared in 2020, at least most of that money went directly to the people, while his trillions were effectively funneled into the pockets of arms dealers.

The war in Afghanistan was necessary, but it should have been like the Gulf War—just a punishment. Controlling a barren land like Afghanistan has no value, and the terrain is too rugged to control fully. Moreover, it was a very religious place; if the Soviets couldn’t advance secular reforms, the U.S. certainly couldn’t.

As for the Iraq War, I’ve thought long and hard but still can’t figure out the purpose. They ousted a Sunni government, only to see a Shia one take its place, causing historical enemies in Iran and Iraq to unite. They say it was about oil, but the biggest investors in Iraqi oil are the Chinese. Some claim it was to maintain the petrodollar system; fine, but if Saddam was planning to settle in euros or yuan, a strike similar to the Gulf War would have sufficed. Instead, it turned into a multi-trillion-dollar venture, with thousands of soldiers dead and the U.S. stained by the conflict.

Not to mention, in the name of counter-terrorism, the U.S. cozied up to China, allowing this potential rival to grow into a dragon during his presidency—a nightmare that all subsequent American presidents will face for decades.

Of course, from the perspective of the Chinese people, he is undoubtedly the greatest American president.

As we write this article, the U.S. elections have not yet concluded, and the list of answers to “the worst president in the past 30 years” is still being updated.

Among the “invalid votes” we have excluded, many people have responded with “every president” and “the next president.”

The post In the Eyes of the Chinese, Who Is the Worst U.S. President? first appeared on China Academy.

Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance said in 2021 that Vice President Kamala Harris is part of the “childless cat ladies” who have no stake in America’s future and are “miserable” because they are not parents.

The other day I asked where Krugman is, for Harris and those like her are useless in arguments with the conservatives. But Krugman, sharp-tongued Krugman, he’s the fighter. On a good day, you can expect a Zizek-style delivery from him. I still remember how, ten years ago, he likened the conversatives to zombies for their shared passion in returning every once in a while to prove their relevance.

As expected, Krugman’s public castigation of Vance came quickly, but his New York Times column didn’t live up to the expectations.

First, let’s talk about the upside of the article. Krugman is sharp at identifying a discrepancy between Vance the writer and Vance the politician. Vance the writer asks why people in the Rust Belt abandon their ambitions, fall into downward spirals, and choose drug use at home over good job opportunities. In “Hillbilly Elegy”, Vance didn’t attribute what he perceives as deficiencies in morale–deficiencies that are incurable by government’s support policies– to the external environment and the government. Instead, he attempts to demonstrate the accessibility of success for young people of the Rust Belt by using his own experience and examples of other some successful people.

But Vance the politician says otherwise. Now Trump’s vice presidential candidate,Vance is blaming China’s manufacturing capabilities and immigrants for the job loss among white Americans. Krugman finds Vance intolerably hypocritical.

I don’t think Vance is hypocritical.

In “Hillbilly Elegy”,Vance notes that with the relocation of the steel giants, the prosperous life the working class once enjoyed faded away. And following that, the towns lost big stores too because people’s dwindling income no longer support shopping in these big stores. Right here, I see a precursor to his later attacks on China and immigrants.

I read Vance discrepancy as his nuanced understanding of social issues. He admits that the government and the environment play a role, but he is skeptical about how effective the government’s support policies can be based on his own experience. For example, in case of child abuse, the government can legally deprive the parents of custody and send the child to a foster family. Vance strongly opposes this approach, believing that the policy does not take into account how large families works. In his own case, although his mother was terrible,, he still had his grandparents, aunts, and sisters to provide care. He didn’t want to go to a strange foster family, so he lied in court, saying that his mother did not abuse him, so that he could stay and accompany his beloved grandmother.

“Hillbilly Elegy” is a 2020 drama film based on J.D. Vance’s memoir, following a Yale law student reconnecting with his Appalachian family roots.

I also read an overtone: You the last generation, you the people without a family and children, you don’t hold the keys to intricate familial problems, regardless of good intentions. Thinking back to his mockery of Harris and AOC, I don’t think he’s just bashing feminism, but chastising the inexperienced for holding immense power. Just as Chinese people will blame bureaucrats who never laid foot in factories or fields for formulating industrial and agricultural policies, which are often detached from the real-life practices.

When Vance was finally freed from the nightmare of high school, he enlisted in the military due to a lack of confidence in facing college right away. After four years of training in the Marine Corps, Vance acquired the perseverance and stamina vital for later stages of life. He then applied for Ohio State University, and claimed to only sleep 3 or 4 hours a day in his undergraduate study. He fell seriously ill during this time, but ended up completing his Bachelor’s degree ahead of schedule before admitted into Yale.

Vance’s fault lies in his ignorance of the structural contradictions of the United States and is the intrinsic problems of the “American Dream”..

He believes in the righteousness of the “civilized” world represented by Yale, and identifies with the upper social network in Yale, of which Krugman is a member of!

In his view, unequal access to the “civilized” world is the bane of the suffering borne by youth in the Rust Belt. It never occurred to him that the “civilized” world itself may be the bane of the suffering borne by the United States and the world.

But as Chinese people, how can we blame him? He never studied the Marxist theory like we did. And even if he did, could he still become a senator if he dared to challenge US’s institutional arrangements? I’d say that even Bernie Sanders, who is known as a socialist, will never go so far as to highlight the fundamental institutional problems of the United States.

Krugman calls for everyone to take a closer look at Vance’s book, a process Krugman believes will lay bare Vance’s discrimination against his fellow “hillbillies” because Vance attributes their failures to themselves.

On the contrary, I think that by saying this, Krugman appears either as a liar, or a man whose reading comprehension ability is compromised by party affiliation. My feeling is that in writing the memoir, Vance comes from a place of sincerity, rather than condesending superiority. He details the warmth and pain intertwined in family life, and the traps his relatives and fellow “hillbillies” repeatedly fall into without resorting to self-help. He arrives at the conclusion that families with stable temperaments can best benefit the growth of children. Too much “hillbilly” style volatility and explosiveness lead to oversensitivity and overreaction, which haunted Vance for a long time until he grew out of it with the help of his mentors and his wife.

In order to help young people who are going through similar experiences, Vance didn’t hold back in sharing his memories of embarrassment or trauma and his way of getting over them. That include the moment when he wanted to kill his mother, and the moment in the social occasion of Yale where he made a scene for not being able to distinguish between purified water and carbonated water. He brought to light the unspoken rules to the Rust Belt youths isolated from the outside world. He is grateful to professors like Amy Chua who has provided guidance to him, and wants to of guidace to others through participating in various public welfare activities.

At the end of “Hillbilly Elegy”, the protagonist had dinner with a 15-year-old boy named Bran in his hometown of Middletown, through which he keenly discovered root of the anxiety and timidity of the boy–his drug-addicted mom. I was deeply touched by the book’s attention to humanity.

Krugman obviously considers himself someone who understands the big-picture problem, saying that Biden’s bills are formulated with the employment of the Rust Belt in mind. One person in the comment area ridicules that any embazzlement by Washington politicians would dwarf the amount appropriated to the Rust Belt by the Biden administration.

I have no interest defending Vance. I write to highlight the fact that Vance,  the modern-day Great Gatsby in America, is worth acknowledging for his representativeness.  

There are two Vances, the Yale Vance and the hillbilly Vance.

The Yale Vance views the world through the lens of the elite culture dictated by Krugmans. This is a culture that defies self-reflection when it comes to the structural contradictions of the United States, and buries its head in the sand by scapegoating China or immigrants.

But the hillbilly Vance harbors a soul that doesn’t allow a blatant overlook of his real life experience and the problems gnawing his hometown. He has no way out but to faithfully write down the painful details of his story.

It’s the entrenched American ideology that hindered him from producing a more brilliant analysis of these materials. But that’s enough. Just like how Marx praised Balzac, although his thought was of a royalist, the materials composed of “Human Comedy”  were rich enough to reveal the connotation of capitalism.

To be honest, if you’re really going to engage in street-level cursing, Krugman is not the right person. Vance used the issue of childbirth to criticize several female Democrats, which, if it were on the Chinese internet, would be decapitated by populist feminists. One could learn from the kongfu of cursing on the Chinese internet, which combines the essence of Wizardization of contemporary American feminist theory, the quintessence of Chinese traditional culture, the rampant of apocalyptic individualism, and so on. Oh, I won’t say any more.

“The World on Fire” is written by Amy Chua, who mentored J.D. Vance, the author of “Hillbilly Elegy,” during his time at Yale, greatly influencing his perspectives and writing.

I don’t intend to add fuel to the fire.In this “world on fire” , whose thoughts are not wavily and twisting?
In fact, Krugman’s diatribe against Vance exposes a tacit agreement between the two parties-scratch the surface, don’t touch upon the fundamental issues of the United States.
The one that touches upon the fundamental issues of the United States is, of course, the Eastern power. But you don’t seem to like it, really？

The post JD Vance, Drowsy in the American Dream first appeared on China Academy.