The Exchanges

Q John, what's, what's your thought on that? Do you see any difference between, uh, Republicans and Democrats?

A No, I like to refer to the Republicans and the Democrats as Tweedledee and Tweedledum. There's hardly any difference. I actually think the one exception is that, uh, former President Trump, when he became president in 2017, was bent on beating back the deep state and becoming a different kind of leader on the foreign policy front, but he basically failed, and he has vowed that if he gets elected this time, uh, it will be different, and he will beat back the deep state, he will Pursue a foreign policy that's fundamentally different, uh, than Republicans and Democrats have pursued up to now. And the big question on the table is whether or not you think Trump can beat the deep state and these two established parties. Uh, and I'd bet against Trump.

AI assessment note: “No, I like to refer to the Republicans and the Democrats as Tweedledee and Tweedledum.”

Q in Afghanistan, you need to evolve, you know, to be a perfect democracy like the one we have here. I think we all agree that's unrealistic and insane, um, and not practical. But what about the free countries of the world uniting together to stop dictators from invading other free countries? Is that noble? Is that a good use of power and a good framework for America to evolve to?

A No, I don't think so. Uh, I think that what the United States should do is worry about its own national interest. Uh, in some cases that's going to involve align ourselves with a dictator. Uh, if we're fighting World War II all over again, it's December eighth, 1941. You surely would be in favor of a lying with Adolf, not with Adolf Hitler, with Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union against Uh, Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. Sometimes you have to make those kind of compromises. Uh, as I said before, I love liberal democracy. I have no problem aligned with liberal democracy, but when you begin to think in the terms that you're thinking, you end up, uh, with an impulse to do social engineering around the world, and that gets you in all sorts of problems.

AI assessment note: “No, I don't think so. Uh, I think that what the United States should do”

Q interesting, I mean, you and Jeff, I think, arrive at similar conclusions about Ukraine, uh, but different ones on China, right? Because Jeff is an economist and I think sees the world in fundamentally positive some ways based on the potential for trade economics, basically. Whereas you see the world as more of a zero sum game based on the balance of power. Why don't you just explain that difference?

A Okay. Uh, it is very important to emphasize, as David was saying, that Jeff and I agree on all sorts of issues, including Ukraine and Israel, Palestine, But we disagree fundamentally as he just made clear on China. And let me explain to you why I think that's the case. And then Jeff can tell you why he thinks I'm wrong. Uh, it has to do with security, whether you privilege security or survival or whether you privilege prosperity and economists. And I would imagine most of you in the audience really care greatly about maximizing prosperity for someone like me, who's a realist. What I care about is maximizing the state's prospects of survival. And when you live in an anarchic system, and in IR speak, that means there's no higher authority. There's no night watchman that could come down and rescue if you get into trouble. And this is the international system. There's no higher authority. In that anarchic world, the best way to survive is to be really powerful. As we used to say when I was a kid on New York City playgrounds, you want to be the biggest and baddest dude on the block. And that's simply because it's the best way to survive. If you're really powerful, Nobody fools around with you. The United States is a regional hegemon. It's the only regional hegemon on the planet. We dominate the Western Hemisphere, and what China has begun to do as it's got increasingly powerful econ…

AI assessment note: “it has to do with security, whether you privilege security or survival or whether you privilege prosperity”

Q So John, can we contain China, prevent them from becoming a regional hegemon without directly defending Taiwan? I mean, isn't that where the rubber meets the road?

A No, it's not just Taiwan. I mean, one could argue there's sort of three flash points in East Asia that you folks should keep your eye on. One is obviously Taiwan, two is the South China Sea, and three is the East China Sea. And I think, David, that the place where a conflict is most likely today is not over Taiwan. I could explain why I think Taiwan is not a serious problem at the moment or for the foreseeable future. The South China Sea is a very dangerous place. We could end up in a war for sure, even if we did not defend Taiwan. Uh, so Taiwan, you don't want to overemphasize. I agree with David. I agree with Jeff that we definitely don't want a war, and we certainly don't want a nuclear war. And he is absolutely correct that there's a risk of a nuclear war if a war breaks out of any sort between China and the United States. Many of us in the audience remember the Cold War, and this was an ever-present danger in the Cold War. But my argument is that this is inevitable, because in a world where you don't have a higher authority and you care about your survival, You have a deep seated interest as any state in the system to be as powerful as possible. And that means dominating your region.

AI assessment note: “No, it's not just Taiwan.”