Yanwen’s blog

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.

Trump correctly identifies many of the challenges the nation faces, but his proposed solutions are debatable—one of which is raising tariffs.

During his first term, President Trump imposed tariffs on roughly $370 billion worth of Chinese imports, with rates reaching up to 25%.

Despite these tariffs, the trade imbalance with China remained largely unchanged. Bloomberg just reports that "China’s trade surplus is on track to hit nearly $1 trillion in 2024, setting a record high despite ongoing global economic and political tensions."

The impact of tariffs on the U.S. economy has been mixed: on the positive side, while tariffs boosted the U.S. government revenue which was used for his tax cut, and provided leverage in trade negotiations, they also temporarily shielded some domestic industries from foreign competition, potentially leading to job growth in certain sectors.

However, the subsequent tit-for-tat escalations have made American goods more expensive abroad, decreasing demand for U.S. exports, leading to job loss in some areas. The higher prices of import goods are passed to the consumers, leading to domestic inflation. Major American industries—including agriculture, technology, and manufacturing—lost market share and trade partners, and saw declining revenues.

Export-dependent industries and their supply chains were hit especially hard, facing increased risks of job losses. 

Retaliatory tariffs disrupted international supply networks, raising costs for companies that depend on imported parts and materials. This impact was felt not only by American consumers and businesses but also by global corporations with operations in the U.S., as many rely on cross-border production networks.

Moreover, the unpredictability of ongoing trade conflicts has created a climate of uncertainty, leading companies to delay investments and expansion plans.

Finally, countries affected by U.S. tariffs have increasingly sought new trade partners, forming alliances that bypass the U.S. market. This shift could weaken America’s long-term trade relationships and business opportunities, making America isolated in the global trend for cooperation, especially if other nations come to view the U.S. as an unreliable or unpredictable partner.

According to analyses by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Council on Foreign Relations, the overall effects of these tariffs remain complex. In reality, U.S. businesses have faced increased costs and market disruptions, which have contributed to inflationary pressures and raised questions about the long-term effectiveness and cost of using tariffs as a trade policy tool.

A Chinese saying goes, "杀敌一千，自损八百" (shā dí yī qiān, zì sǔn bā bǎi), which means, "You kill one thousand enemy troops, but at the cost of losing 800 yourself." This expression captures the heavy cost of inflicting harm on another. 

While Trump 1.0 tariffs aimed to weaken China’s economic position, they ultimately backfired, creating comparable setbacks for American businesses and consumers, and harming U.S. interests in the long run.

Last weekend we went apple picking again with the children. What we talked most was the election.  I explained to them two simple terms describing Trump's hardened supporters and their opponents: 川粉 (Chuān-fěn), their opponents: 白左 (Bái-zuǒ). They were truly impressed by the way Chinese simplified the expression, two syllables expressing so much.

A few days ago, a friend shared an article about Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) as a model of successful reshoring to the United States.

TSMC’s decision to expand its manufacturing facilities in the U.S. has been largely driven by geopolitical factors and bolstered by significant support from the CHIPS Act.

The CHIPS Act (Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors), enacted by the U.S. government in 2022 amid rising tensions with China, aims to secure American semiconductor production. With around $52 billion allocated for funding and tax incentives for domestic chip plants, the Act is a cornerstone of the U.S.’s strategy to boost competitiveness in semiconductor technology.

For TSMC’s Arizona project, the U.S. government has committed up to $6.6 billion in direct support under the CHIPS Act, along with up to $5 billion in loans and tax credits. This extensive backing aligns with the U.S.’s broader goals of strengthening domestic semiconductor production, reducing reliance on foreign suppliers, and enhancing national security. TSMC’s Arizona facilities are expected to generate roughly 26,000 jobs.

TSMC’s expansion reflects the complex dynamics of U.S.-China relations. The new Arizona plants are part of a broader reshoring or “friend-shoring” trend, as semiconductor companies reduce geopolitical risks by aligning production with supportive government policies.

While TSMC could feasibly continue its operation without further U.S. funding, recently, TSMC founder Morris Chang discussed some hurdles, noting how escalating geopolitical tensions and free-trade restrictions have increased competition over chip production. As a key supplier to companies like Apple and Nvidia, TSMC now finds itself at the center of major powers striving to secure chip access as tensions with China rise. The company has also navigated U.S. restrictions limiting its supply of advanced chips to Chinese firms, including Huawei.

Finally, could we replicate TSMC's move and have more factories moving back? With the right amount of money, absolutely yes. The Chinese saying "有钱能使鬼推磨" (yǒu qián néng shǐ guǐ tuī mò) — “With money, you can make the devil turn the millstone”— captures this idea perfectly. It suggests that with sufficient financial backing, even the toughest challenges become surmountable.