Yanwen’s blog

On November 12, 2024, Bloomberg reported that President-elect Donald Trump has selected a new National Security Advisor who identifies China as the primary threat to U.S. interests. This choice aligns with Trump’s broader strategy of adopting a more confrontational stance toward China.

In addition, Trump has been assembling a team known for their hardline positions on China. Notably, Senator Marco Rubio has been named Secretary of State, and Representative Mike Waltz has been chosen for a key defense role. Both figures are unapologetically hostile toward China, frequently targeting its policies on issues such as Xinjiang and Taiwan, areas where they have actively pushed for U.S. intervention.

Furthermore, John Ratcliffe has been named CIA Director, further reinforcing this trajectory. Ratcliffe is expected to continue prioritizing China as a focal point for U.S. intelligence operations, consistent with the administration’s overarching strategy.

These appointments indicate a deliberate move toward a more assertive and potentially antagonistic U.S. approach to China, heightening the risk of escalating tensions between the two nations.

On Chinese social media, the announcement of this hawkish lineup has sparked widespread concern. Many have expressed fears of intensifying conflict, even the heightened possibility of wars, describing the mood as one of deep unease—pitch dark and profoundly pessimistic. Even my ESL student can see this and becomes worried for China. 

There is an ironic twist, however: many Chinese had previously viewed Trump as the more peaceful option, believing he would focus on domestic issues like tariffs rather than foreign intervention. Little had they anticipated such a hostile buildup.

This situation calls to mind a famous line from a poem by Mao Zedong: "敌军围困万千重，我自岿然不动" (Dí jūn wéi kùn wàn qiān chóng, wǒ zì kuī rán bú dòng), which means: "Surrounded by enemy troops in countless layers, we stand firm, unwavering." Originally written during the Long March, these words encapsulate a spirit of resilience that echoes in China’s attitude today—one of strategic calm and steadfast resolve amid extreme external pressures and provocations.

Mao’s words resonate with both historical strength and modern diplomatic wisdom. They remind us that true power is not found in confrontation and aggression but in resilience, resolve, and strategic patience. In the face of mounting challenges, steadfastness remains the most reliable path to long-term peace, stability, and enduring strength.

Two weeks before the U.S. election, I came across an article by Scott Foster, published on 10/18/2024, discussing Apple’s new R&D center in Shenzhen.

Amid the persistent calls for decoupling from China—amplified particularly during Trump’s tenure—many companies face mounting pressure to leave China. Apple, however, stands out as an exception. Its strategy of maintaining and even deepening its ties with China reflects a rare form of pragmatism. This decision acknowledges an economic reality that many overlook: for companies like Apple, fully decoupling from China is nearly impossible due to its vast market and the intricate interconnections of its ecosystem. Apple's move carries significant implications on multiple levels:

First, Apple acknowledges China’s pivotal role not only as a current revenue powerhouse but also as a cornerstone for long-term growth.

With its expanding middle class and rapid technological advancements, China remains critical to Apple’s future. This recognition underscores Apple's awareness that abandoning such a crucial market would be both impractical and detrimental to its global ambitions.

Second, Apple demonstrates a focus on long-term stability over short-term political pressures.

By deepening its engagement in China, Apple positions itself to weather the political cycles in the U.S., whether driven by Trump or any future administration. This strategy minimizes its vulnerability to the shifting tides of U.S.-China relations, emphasizing resilience over reaction.

Third, Apple understands the core of its identity as a technology company.

Staying at the forefront of innovation is vital for Apple’s survival, and the Shenzhen R&D center signals its commitment to leveraging China's vast talent pool. This move ensures access to cutting-edge expertise essential for developing advanced technologies like AI, AR/VR, and 5G. Additionally, local R&D enables Apple to tailor its products to Chinese consumer preferences—an advantage that often shapes global trends.

Fourth, Apple’s decision reflects a nuanced understanding of geopolitics.

Geopolitical tensions between the U.S. and China are unlikely to disappear, regardless of who is in power. By strengthening its presence in China, Apple safeguards its operations against prolonged uncertainty and potential disruptions, ensuring continuity amid a volatile global landscape.

Finally, Apple reaffirms its identity as a global brand leader, not just a U.S. company.

This move highlights Apple’s broader vision to remain dominant on the world stage. The Shenzhen R&D center reinforces its commitment to China, a critical hub of global innovation, while signaling to shareholders and consumers that Apple prioritizes global competitiveness. This strategic positioning ensures that Apple stays ahead in an increasingly interconnected and competitive world.

A Chinese saying goes, "识时务者为俊杰" (Shí shí wù zhě wéi jùn jié), meaning, "A wise person knows how to adapt to the times." This perfectly encapsulates Apple’s pragmatic and forward-thinking approach to navigating the complexities of the U.S.-China relationship. By deepening its ties with China despite external pressures, Apple demonstrates a strategic understanding of the global landscape and a steadfast commitment to long-term success. In a world filled with uncertainty and anxiety, Apple's actions remind us of the importance of adhering to core values and long-term vision, which serve as guiding principles through ever-changing times.

This was written a week ago.

I’ve read extensively online about Donald Trump winning "big and fast" in the 2024 election. But this outcome can also be seen as Joe Biden's party losing "big and fast."  

The results, however, seem to reflect less about the popularity of the Republican Party and more about widespread dissatisfaction with the Democrats. In essence, it was the Democratic Party's poor performance that paved the way for Trump’s decisive victory.  

Inflation and Economic Mismanagement  

First and foremost, there was a groundswell of discontent over soaring inflation. The prices of basic necessities like eggs, milk, and beef more than doubled, disproportionately impacting poorer communities. What matters most to average people is their "菜篮子" (cài lán zi)—literally "the vegetable basket," a term symbolizing the affordability and availability of everyday essentials like food. In a broader sense, it represents people's livelihoods, highlighting the pressing economic issues that affect ordinary citizens' well-being.  

Yet, Democratic leadership, perched in an elite ivory tower, failed not only to see but also to address the day-to-day struggles of grassroots Americans, working-class, and low-income Americans. The party’s preoccupation with progressive cultural agendas, while appealing to urban and affluent voters, alienated rural and vast lower or middle-class communities who felt ignored or left behind.

The Perception of Elitism  

Secondly, there was a growing perception among ordinary Americans that today’s Democratic leaders had become disconnected elites—aloof and out of touch with the masses. Their tone often came across as condescending, which many found deeply off-putting. Even traditionally loyal Democratic voters were disenchanted by this apparent elitism.

Terms like "bai-zuo" or "white liberals," often associated with "priggishness, pontification, and pomposity," aptly captured the frustration of many Americans. Instead of feeling represented, they felt lectured to—alienated rather than included.

A "Vote Against" the Democrats

More than anything else, the 2024 election outcome was a resounding "vote against" the Democratic Party rather than an enthusiastic endorsement of Republican Party. The fact that Republicans secured both the presidency and control of Congress speaks volumes about the electorate's dissatisfaction with the incumbent party. It wasn’t a sweeping mandate for the opposition, but rather a loud rejection of the status quo.

Lessons from History  

Mao Zedong once emphasized the importance of “不要脱离群众” (bù yào tuō lí qún zhòng)—"Don’t distance yourself from the masses" or "Stay connected with the rank-and-file people." The Democratic Party might have avoided such a devastating loss if its leaders had prioritized staying close to their base, understanding their daily struggles, and addressing their concerns.  

The lesson is clear: leadership disconnected from the people is bound to falter. For the Democrats to rebuild, they must reconnect with the broader community and focus on tangible issues that resonate with everyday Americans, the domestic people they are supposed to serve.

Over the weekend, I asked my daughter if she’d picked up any Chinese from my daily posts. She replied, “No, but I read your articles.” This made me wonder if my Chinese inputs were having any impact—until I found myself shouting at the YMCA pool today: "站着茅坑不拉屎" (zhànzhe máokēng bù lā shǐ). I have a feeling my daughter might enjoy learning this one.

"站着茅坑不拉屎" is a vivid Chinese idiom that literally means "occupying the latrine pit without pooping." It’s used to describe someone who occupies a space or resource without actually using it, effectively blocking others from doing so. The English expression “dog in the manger” captures a similar idea.

I used this phrase when I spotted two ladies standing in one lane at the crowded pool, chatting instead of swimming. With all the lanes full, I couldn’t help but feel they were wasting space! I did make sure no Chinese speakers were around before I said it, though.

This idiom might also be applied to President Joe Biden, by critics who feel he’s occupying a crucial position without delivering the bold steps they hoped for. They might argue that his administration has, at times, been too cautious on big issues like climate change, healthcare reform, immigration reforms, and student loan debt.

Similarly, if President-elect Trump falls short on delivering his campaign promises—particularly those tied to "Make America Great Again" (MAGA)—voters might use the same expression. This would reflect the frustration of supporters who feel he’s occupying the presidential office without taking the bold actions he promised, especially around cleaning the swamp and reshoring manufacturing jobs. In this case, the phrase humorously captures the sense of wasted potential and unfulfilled expectations, especially for those who trusted him to bring real change on these key promises. And it might just turn out to be accurate in another four years, when the next election rolls around!

I watched a campus debate between a male and a female student. The female student is a typical "白左" (bái zuǒ) "white left" or "white liberal." It implies someone on the political left who is perceived as excessively idealistic, hypocritical, or naive about social justice issues.

The man asked, "Why do Black Americans, who make up 13% of the total population, represent 55% of the prison population?"

The woman highlighted the intersection of race and economic status, arguing that discrimination keeps many minorities in lower economic positions, contributing to their higher incarceration rates.

The man followed up, asking, 'Why do economically disadvantaged Asian minorities have low crime rates?'

The woman responded by noting that many Asian immigrants come from relatively stable economic backgrounds. However, a woman from the crowd stood up and rejected this view, sharing her experience as a 'boat person' refugee from Vietnam.

When the woman struggled to answer, the man introduced additional statistics: 75% of Black youth grow up in fatherless households, which he stated is the most significant predictor of future incarceration. He argued that the prevalence of single-parent Black families is influenced by three factors: government subsidies for single-parent households, cultural dynamics, and community acceptance of this structure. He referenced Thomas Sowell's book and the Nanny State to support his argument.

The woman countered by suggesting that the government could help change this culture by increasing subsidies for healthcare and education, making it easier for fathers to remain with their families.

The man disagreed, pointing to historical data: government subsidies for Black families began in 1965 when single-parent households were around 25%. Today, he claimed, that figure has risen to 75–80%. He argued that increasing financial support has coincided with a rise in single-parent families, suggesting a counterproductive effect.

His final statement was, "Don't dance around the core of the issue."

...............

The debate highlighted the multifaceted nature of social problems in America, including social, race, cultural, and economic factors. It also underscored two contrasting explanations for these issues. Different people hold varying views on both the causes and solutions. 

Ultimately, the conversation about race, class, culture, crime and social justice requires honesty and a willingness to confront raw facts and the root causes of these problems, rather than simplifying them into one-sided narratives or beating around the bush, bai zuo style.