Joe Manchin

 There are several kinds of possible takes on his announcement on Fox News Sunday that he "cannot vote to continue with" the Build Back Better package. We're already seeing some of them play out. 

Lefties are howling, of course. A common theme among their expressions of outrage is that it was a mistake for Capitol Hill Dems to de-couple the infrastructure bill from BBB. But wasn't the point of doing so that the American public wouldn't swallow a price tag like that was going to entail? The ongoing - and ever worsening -debt-and-deficit problem may not ordinarily be a front-burner issue for most citizens, but in a year of a dramatic rise in inflation, its insidious nature has been easier for people to see. More basically, while some of BBB's provisions poll favorably (more on that in a bit), the portion of the public on board with such a massive imposition of collectivism, identity-politics militancy and climate alarmism is relatively small.

The administration, via Jen Psaki, took the line that Manchin's announcement constitutes a betrayal of goodwill. That's to be expected. 

Haven't really seen much response from the Trumpists yet, but I'll predict that the basic tone will be along the lines of glee at a defeat for Dems without much analysis.

Actual conservatives are understandably heartened by this development, because it's a significant stymying of the general progressive agenda.

The case that Manchin might have been more comfortable as a Republican over the course of his career is fairly easy to make. I find the preponderance of his activity laudable. (Not that I consider myself a Republican anymore, but a lot of his moves happened back when the GOP was the repository for conservative principles.)

He voted to confirm Scott Pruitt for EPA head. While Pruitt later demonstrated some poor judgement, going into his nomination, the salient point about him was that he understood that the EPA was all about overreach and halting human advancement. Manchin's first bill in the Senate was the EPA Fair Play Act, intended to address the agency's monkeying with the rules after permits for a project had been granted.

He supported the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would have greatly enhanced the nation's energy outlook.

He voted for Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. He seems to have understood that they were serious jurists with a fealty to the Constitution as written. 

He was a founder of No Labels in 2010. While the idea naturally arouses skepticism (at least for me), it indicates a desire to distinguish himself from what the Democrats had become.

He's said he doesn't see the need for DC statehood, which is a no-brainer for anyone who's motivated by anything other than instantly adding a bunch of Dem voters to the rolls. 

He's on record as being skeptical that single-payer health care has any appreciable merit.

He seems to understand that marriage, as defined by all cultures all over the world throughout history until the last couple of decades at the outset, is between a man and a woman. Hence, his lone stance as the only Democrat not to cosponsor the Equality Act.

He opposed hiking the minimum wage to $15 per hour, although he's not quite as immovable on this one, having then floated the idea that a lesser hike might be okay. I personally wish he'd said something like minimum wage being bad and wrong as a matter of principle, but that's probably too much to ask for. 

So why has he remained a Democrat through the years? The intertwining of family tradition and party affiliation may be a factor. He comes from a politically prominent West Virginia family.

There are also going to be the disinterested-analysis takes, which will largely state the obvious: He represents a state that went for Trump over Biden, which necessitates him balking at BBB's glaring problems, and Biden surely knows that with the Senate comprised as it is, BBB was likely to mostly be a lot of big talk.

There will be cynical takes as well. From the left, they will take the form of characterizing Manchin's motivation as being getting a kick out of wielding this unusual amount of power. 

And now for my opinion. I'm absolutely delighted. Manchin's announcement has indeed prevented a ratcheting-up of the progressive vision's imposition that would have rendered the country even less recognizable that it already is. But I'm not gloating. "Ha-ha-we-sure-owned-the-libs" is not the point of my delight. 

The messiness attendant to the way things are done in America will continue. 

As I mentioned above, while polls show that the American populace remains, overall, center-right, several of BBB's features have great appeal to lots of people. Subsidized child care and target dates for moving away from fossil fuels sound great to a public that has little acquaintance with the concept of economic freedom. People have vague notions of what policies are preferable based on not much more than "yeah, that sounds like it would make life better," not considering the price: government omnipresence in their lives. 

I'm not a cynic. I think Joe Manchin is a decent man with his head basically on straight who had no desire to accelerate his country's headlong rush to decline. 

The Republican Party must be entirely replaced if actual conservatism is to have any shot at viability - today's edition

 The prospects for each of post-America's two major political parties remain what they were when I wrote the introductory paragraphs to this post on November 16:

I don't doubt the findings of a Washington Post/ABC News poll showing Republicans having the widest margin of advantage over Democrats in a generic poll concerning how respondents would vote re: their districts' House candidates. 

Not surprising at all. Democrats are increasingly recognized as the party of wealth redistribution, climate alarmism and wokeness. And there are even more than a few progressives who are put out with the administration for being completely inept at seeing through its leftist aims. Mediocrity and incompetence characterize the way it operates. Voters know it.

So it's all wrong for the nation and doesn't deserve your vote.

But, you see, this is exactly why I long ago (as in mid-2016) eschewed the binary-choice argument. 

The Republican Party's status as a cult can't be reversed. Its leadership has either convinced itself of the rigged-election narrative or signed on to the we-need-to-move-on-and-be-about-a-forward-looking-agenda set of talking points. In any event, there's no room for the only remaining Republicans who refuse to indulge the delusion. 

That was well-established already, but with the 38-page memo now in the hands of the public, the dangerousness of this cult should be plain to every citizen who is not caught up in it:

A 38-page plan for overturning President Joe Biden's electoral victory reportedly involved declaring a nationwide national security emergency and invalidating all electronically-cast ballots.

Mark Meadows shared a PowerPoint presentation dated January 5 with the Capitol riot committee, titled 'Election Fraud, Foreign Interference & Options for 6 JAN,' as part of the trove of documents he was compelled to hand over in the House's ongoing probe.

Its existence was revealed by Committee Chair Rep. Bennie Thompson, the lone Democrat representing Mississippi in Congress, in a letter informing Meadows' lawyer that the panel had 'no choice' but to move forward with a criminal referral for the ex-White House Chief of Staff for refusing to appear for a deposition.

This thing leaves no room for doubt that comparisons of  the final lineup of Trump-administration personnel to Latin American strongman operations is no exaggeration. 

Portions of that presentation shared by The Guardian reporter Hugo Lowell detail a series of 'recommendations,' apparently for Trump, to follow ahead of the planned electoral vote certification the next day.

They include declaring a national security emergency over accusations that China 'gained control over our election system,' claiming US electronic voting systems were 'under foreign influence and control,' and briefing federal lawmakers on the alleged 'foreign interference.'

It also calls for Trump to declare all electronically-cast ballots invalid and instructing Congress to undergo a 'legal & genuine' count of paper ballots or other 'Constitutional remedy.'

Another slide features three recommendations for ex-Vice President Mike Pence, who it's now known told Trump on January 5th that he wanted no part of his efforts to overturn Biden's win:

'VP Pence seats Republican Electors over the objections of Democrats in states where fraud occurred,' the first point states.

'VP Pence rejects the electors from States where fraud occurred causing the election to be decided by remaining electoral votes.

'VP Pence delays the decision in order to allow for a vetting and subsequent counting of the all the legal paper ballots.'

It appears to be in line with a memo written by John Eastman, a law professor who advised Trump on how to overturn the election and was also subpoenaed by the committee. 

Eastman took part in a January 4 Oval Office meeting where participants debated whether Pence had the authority to not accept votes certified by states that ultimately made Biden president when Congress met to count votes on January 6. 

Another slide in the PowerPoint allegedly linked to Meadows refers to all non-paper ballots as 'counterfeit.'

It claims that electronic voting machines 'are shifting votes from Trump to Biden' and therefore only paper ballots could be counted, which would 'almost certainly' hand victory to Trump. 

By eliminating mail-in ballots, a majority of which went to Democrats in 2020, 'US Senators, US House Races, State, and Local races now turn to Republican,' the presentation states.

It also appears to call for all urban-area votes to be rendered invalid, claiming without evidence that foreign actors changed votes 'in traditionally Republican strongholds in order to deliver a Biden win because they could jam no more into the major cities (fraud votes).' 

The purported plan goes on to outline a recount scenario in which the remaining paper ballots would be 'locked and physically protected' by Trump's government and the vote count would happen under the National Guard's watch.

'A Trusted Lead Counter will be appointed with authority from the POTUS to direct the actions of select federalized National Guard units and support from DOJ, DHS and other US government agencies as needed to complete a recount of the legal paper ballots for the federal elections in all 50 states,' the presentation details. 

Thompson's Tuesday letter to Meadows' lawyer reveals the Trump ally was exchanging emails about the lengthy presentation up until the day before the Capitol attack and it was intended for presentation 'on the hill.'

The letter also revealed further bombshell details about communications that the former North Carolina congressman did send over to the committee. 

One of the most damning appears to be a text exchange between Meadows and an unnamed federal lawmaker that took place after the November 2020 election.

The letter refers to a 'November 6, 2020, text exchange with a Member of Congress apparently about appointing alternate electors in certain states as part of a plan that the Member acknowledged would be "highly controversial" and to which Mr. Meadows apparently said, "I love it"...'    

If, God forbid, he were to win the 2024 election, think about what the whole world would know right off the bat about the value system, if you want to call it that, that informs Trumpist foreign policy. During his 2016-2020 term, he was rightly lauded for overseeing a pro-Israel foreign policy, and he reveled in having established a buddy relationship with Benjamin Netanyahu. But what's transpired regarding that bond over the course of this year reveals two things: one, that Trump is truly nuts and believes this whole scenario he's concocted in his head. and, two, he hadn't the slightest understanding or regard for the reason for the US-Israel alliance: Israel is the only Western nation in the Middle East and the only one with a diversified, advanced economy. For the Very Stable Genius, it was all about personal loyalty and betrayal. He had no use for Netanyahu when the latter took the same view of the US election that 60 courts where Trump zombies filed lawsuits did. 

Don't doubt this:

Former President Trump accused Benjamin Netanyahu of disloyalty after the former Israeli prime minister congratulated President Biden on his presidential win earlier this year. 

"I haven’t spoken to him since," Trump said, according to comments released from an interview taken by Israeli journalist Barak Ravid. "F--k him," he added.

Trump accused Netanyahu of speaking up too quickly following what the former president has still yet to concede was a legitimate election. 

"Nobody did more for Bibi. And I liked Bibi. I still like Bibi," he said, referring to the former prime minister by his nickname. "But I also like loyalty. The first person to congratulate Biden was Bibi. And not only did he congratulate him, he did it on tape."

Despite Trump’s condemnation of Netanyahu, the then-prime minister was not amongst one of the first world leaders to congratulate Biden for securing the presidential win.

Netanyahu waited roughly 12 hours after the election had been called to congratulate Biden on his election. 

Okay, so there's a - what? - 15 percent chance the VSG won't run. There are a few variables that could dictate a different turn of events from what is likely. 

Who gets the mantle? Some drool-besotted throne sniffer like this?

• NIKKI HALEY finally landed a one-on-onewith DONALD TRUMPafter he rejected her request for a sit-down in February, following her condemnation of his actions on Jan. 6. While Haley faced the prospect of being one of Trump’s sworn enemies ahead of a potential 2024 presidential campaign, she praised him during a recent speech in Iowa and said she won’t challenge him in a primary (something Florida Gov. RON DESANTIS hasn’t done). 
• So last week, nearly 10 months after the first snub, Trump finally granted her a visit to Mar-a-Lago to kiss the ring. “He doesn’t see the point in making enemies,” a source close to Trump said, adding that the former president is still skeptical of Haley because of her back-and-forth statements about him. “He likes teasing people,” another aide said.

 

 

It will have to be, won't it? Won't the vast majority of Pub voters demand it? 

By a 74%-to-25% margin, Republicans and Republican-leaning independent voters (who we'll call potential Republican primary voters) say that Biden didn't win enough votes to win the 2020 election legitimately. 

But it's not just that there are a lot of them. They look to be the ones who are going to be the most likely to cast a ballot next year. 

The margin grows to 86% to 13% that Biden didn't win legitimately among potential Republican primary voters who are extremely enthusiastic about voting next year. Compare that to Republicans who are not enthusiastic about voting in 2022: They believe Biden didn't win legitimately by a 62% to 38% margin. 

Either way, there are a lot of Republicans who don't think Biden won fairly in 2020. 

Importantly, a lot of Republicans are going to prioritize their feelings about 2020 in how they vote in 2022. That is, it's not likely going to be an afterthought when casting a ballot. 

A majority (61%) of potential Republican primary voters say believing Trump won the 2020 election is important to what being a Republican means to them. Only 39% disagreed.

Again though, primaries are often about turnout. The potential Republican voters who are extremely enthusiastic about voting in 2022 say that believing Trump won is important to what being a Republican means to them by a 77% to 23% margin.

This is outside the bounds of any previous consensus on normal. This ought to be on the nation's front burner.  

 

 

 

 

 

There is no compelling reason for humanity to convert en masse to play-like energy forms

 This move is positive, not only in and of itself, but because it come from a newly elected non-Trumpist Republican governor. He's not grandstanding or kowtowing to a cult. He's just a guy who understands the basic economic flaws in an agreement his state had entered into:

This week, Governor-elect Glenn Youngkin announced his intention to withdraw the Commonwealth of Virginia from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a pact of 11 states requiring power plants inside those states to purchase “allowances” to emit a determined amount of carbon dioxide.

Governor-elect Youngkin said, “RGGI describes itself as a regional market for carbon. But it is really a carbon tax that is fully passed on to ratepayers. It’s a bad deal for Virginians. It a bad deal for Virginia businesses.”

Would that more leaders around the globe understood this. 

The Biden administration clearly doesn't, pressing ahead as it is with its $5 trillion (yes, that's the figure the CBO has calculated for the cost once everything is taken into consideration) climate alarmism-driven Build Back Better plan even as the Associated Press's feet turn cold given our present inflation reality. 

Most of Europe has yet to get a clue:

Germany's new traffic-light political coalition—the red SPD, the yellow Free Democrats, and the Greens—is making the Paris climate agreement its top priority. In April, Germany's constitutional court ruled that its 2050 net-zero target was so distant that it violated the freedoms of young people. So, along with Sweden, Germany became the first country to legislate a 2045 net-zero target. Yet the new German government's net-zero plan, as outlined in the coalition agreement, may as well have been designed to worsen Europe's current energy crisis and sink its largest and most successful economy.

Under the timetable inherited from the Merkel government, zero-emitting nuclear power—which only a decade ago accounted for one-fourth of German electricity generation—will be phased out by the end of next year. To make matters worse, the new coalition is bringing forward the closure of all Germany's coal-fired power stations from 2038 to 2030 and at the same time raising the share of renewables to 80 percent. Notes energy expert Lucian Pugliaresi, Germany's energy policy initiatives "will not be sufficient to meet demand for electricity in Germany in 2030."

Germany's loss is Vladimir Putin's gain—burning more natural gas will be the only way for the country to keep the lights on. That means higher natural gas prices across northern Europe, and a continent more dependent for its energy on a dangerous geopolitical rival.

The biggest disappointment among would-be climate leaders so far has been the host of the recent U.N. climate conference: Britain and its prime minister, Boris Johnson. Britain made its bid for climate leadership in the waning days of the premiership of Johnson's predecessor in the summer of 2019. Theresa May had already announced her decision to step down when she latched on to net zero as her prime ministerial legacy. After a 90-minute debate in the House of Commons, with no cost estimates and no vote, Britain became the first major country to write net zero into law.

A small clique of politicians close to the outgoing prime minister seized on the prospect of Britain winning the presidency of the 2020 UN climate conference (later pushed back to 2021 because of COVID-19) to save face post-Brexit. One of them, former energy secretary Amber Rudd, told Politicothat she thought it would "help bind the U.K. closer to the EU" on climate and energy. It amounts to a reverse case of Boris Johnson's famed cakeism—instead of having your cake and eating it, Britain would have the disadvantages of being tied to the EU without the benefits of EU membership.

Having gotten into the business of climate leadership, Britain made "keeping 1.5 alive"—the maximum temperature rise of 1.5°C that net zero is meant to deliver—the main goal of the Glasgow conference. The result was humiliation. By its end, UN secretary general António Guterres had declared 1.5 "on life support" and the British president of the conference was fighting back tears.

The facts don't bear out this headlong rush to move away from normal-people energy forms:

What the UN report and the underlying scientific literature do say is that, even as natural and growing human influences have warmed the globe 1.1 C since 1900, most extreme weather events have remained within natural variability. The UN’s best estimate is that we’ll see an additional 1.6 C warming by 2100, an increase that is expected to have minimal net economic impact. That’s quite plausible since the 20th century saw a quadrupling of the global population and the greatest improvement ever in human wellbeing, even with the 1.1 C rise.

Science also confirms that we have time. As first recognized in the Nobel prize–winning work of William Nordhaus, an optimal path to “net zero” emissions would balance the disruption of too-rapid a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions (or decarbonization) against a growing risk of detrimental climate impacts. While there are many uncertainties in estimating that balance, future impacts appear to be small, thus suggesting that today’s mitigation plans are too hasty. To enable a graceful and economically viable energy transition in the coming decades, we must better observe and understand the changing climate and develop better emissions-lite technologies.

The alarmists are wont to exploit every natural disaster of newsworthy magnitude, but the fact is that natural-disaster deaths have been in sharp decline for a century:

Not that you’d know it, if you had half an eye on the headlines this summer. The floods, fires and heatwaves that plagued the world were, for many observers, proof that the impacts of climate change have already become catastrophic. In Europe, more than 150 people died in flooding. In the United States, wildfire season started earlier and lasted longer, razing hundreds of thousands of acres. Around the world, hundreds died from heatwaves.

But again, it’s worth reminding ourselves of the facts: there has been a 92% decline in the per decade death toll from natural disasters since its peak in the 1920s. In that decade, 5.4 million people died from natural disasters. In the 2010s, just 0.4 million did. Globally, the five-year period ending in 2020 had the fewest natural disaster deaths of any five-year period since 1900. And this decline occurred during a period when the global population nearly quadrupled — and temperatures rose more than 1°C degree centigrade above pre-industrial levels.

You see, there's an important factor in all this that must be taken into account: human ingenuity:

What determines whether people die in heat waves is not whether temperatures rose to 110°F — or even 115°F— instead of 109°F. It is whether or not they have air conditioning. Heat-related deaths have halved in the US since 1960 — even as the population expanded and heat waves grew in frequency, intensity, and length — because more and more people did.

Though climate alarmists steadfastly ignore it, our capacity to adapt is extraordinary. We are very good at protecting people from natural disasters — and getting better. To take just one example, France in 2006 had 4,000 fewer deaths from a heat wave than anticipated thanks to improved health care, an early-warning system and greater public consciousness in response to a deadly heat wave three years earlier. Even poor, climate-vulnerable nations like Bangladesh saw deaths from natural disasters decline massively thanks to low-cost weather surveillance and warning systems and storm shelters.

Climate alarmists have been wildly off the mark with their predictions for over 50 years.  The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times were, with a straight face, reporting Paul Erlich's prognostications of famine by 1975 and humanity's disappearance "in a cloud of blue steam" within twenty years in 1969. In the early 1970s, the Washington Post and the Boston Globe ran stories taking alarmists' (scientists, doncha know) claims that an ice age would be upon us by the end of the twentieth century seriously. Acid rain had its run as the star crisis of the 1980s, until the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program said "never mind" in 1990. James Hansen's drought predictions were proven to be a lot of hooey. And, of course, there's the polar ice cap disappearance that wasn't. 

Still, the overlords will not brook any suggestion that some reconsideration might be in order:

Take the experience of statistician and sceptical environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg. Earlier this year he was invited to give a public lecture at Duke University, only to be met by high-profile calls for it to be cancelled from Duke professors and assorted climate activists. Duke held its nerve, and the lecture went ahead, but not without Lomborg being denounced as a ‘professional climate denier’ – and all because he questions the economic wisdom of certain aspects of climate-change policymaking. 

Or take the decision of the BBC in 2018 to ban, effectively, any debate over climate change. This decision followed activists’ outcry over its 2014 decision to allow Lord Lawson, a former chancellor of the exchequer and a critic of climate alarmism, to appear on Radio 4’s Today programme. The BBC said it had got its coverage of climate change ‘wrong too often’ and told staff: ‘You do not need a “denier” to balance the debate.’ 

Now even those who are concerned about climate change, but who ‘downplay’, as the Independent put it, ‘the need for immediate and radical cuts to greenhouse gas emissions’, are being accused of denialism. Apparently, ‘delay is the new denial’.

Indeed, influential climate scientist Michael Mann argues that anyone who inhibits the need for drastic action right this very moment, perhaps by talking hopefully of ‘adaptation’, ‘geoengineering’ or ‘carbon capture’, is just a climate denier in optimist’s clothing. ‘The greatest threat’, concludes one politician, ‘is now posed by those who purport to accept the scientific consensus, but refuse to respond at the pace science demands’.

Let's speak plainly. Climate alarmism is one piece of a larger impetus that has seen to it that Western civilization declines to the point of being  unrecognizable. Human advancement that has made possible the safety, comfort, convenience and variety of modern life, and lifted millions out of poverty over the last two centuries, is, in this reading, a negative, an arrogant assertion of privilege by our species, which, since, in this reading, is no better than any other in this relativity-governed universe.

It is such a glaringly off-base vision that it will surely play itself out someday. The question is how much harm it will do in the meantime. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Russia ups the stakes

 A little something to keep on the radar screen as you go forth onto the busy sidewalks dressed in holiday style:

The Kremlin has been moving troops toward the border with Ukraine while demanding Washington guarantee that Ukraine will not join NATO and that the alliance will refrain from certain military activities in and around Ukrainian territory. The crisis has provoked fears of a renewed war on European soil and comes ahead of a planned virtual meeting next week between President Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

“The Russian plans call for a military offensive against Ukraine as soon as early 2022 with a scale of forces twice what we saw this past spring during Russia’s snap exercise near Ukraine’s borders,” said an administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information. “The plans involve extensive movement of 100 battalion tactical groups with an estimated 175,000 personnel, along with armor, artillery and equipment.”

Applying some pressure, no? "Make a firm commitment to keep Ukraine out of NATO and make it fast" is the clear message. 

It's being conveyed diplomatically as well:

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had a testy exchange over Ukraine at a dinner with dozens of their colleagues this week, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The verbal tension erupted as the U.S. and its European allies seek ways -- including possible sanctions -- to counter the threat of a Russian invasion of Ukraine after President Vladimir Putin’s troop buildup on the neighboring country’s border.

Lavrov took the floor at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe dinner in Stockholm on Dec. 1 to revisit Russia’s view that the collapse of a pro-Moscow administration in Ukraine in 2014 was a coup, according to two of the people. He also alleged that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union were suppressing dissent and threatening Russia.

Blinken responded by recapping the 2014 events, including that forces loyal to then-President Viktor Yanukovich fired on peaceful protesters in Kyiv, killing more than 100 people, before he fled and surfaced in Russia. Blinken also told his Russian counterpart that NATO is a defense alliance.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova dismissed reports that Blinken had shut down Lavrov during the exchange at the 57-nation forum. She was responding on Facebook to Ukrainian reports that Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba and Blinken had put Lavrov, one of the world’s most senior diplomats, in his place.

Rather reminiscent of the March meeting in Alaska between top US and Chinese diplomats:

Top diplomats from the U.S. and China had a public blowup in front of reporters Thursday as the two global powers met in Alaska to discuss policy and attempt to restore ties that have become increasingly strained in recent years.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken was joined in Anchorage by Jake Sullivan, President Joe Biden’s national security adviser, to meet with their Chinese counterparts, State Councilor Wang Yi and Chinese Communist Party foreign affairs chief Yang Jiechi, for two days of talks in their first face-to-face meetings.

The atmosphere was expected to be tense because days earlier the U.S. had slapped sanctions on China for Beijing's crackdown on political freedoms in Hong Kong. But the contentious on-camera exchanges that followed were a clear departure from the light pleasantries traditionally offered before diplomatic discussions.

Blinken opened his remarks by saying Beijing needed to return to a rules-based system, lambasting China for violating international norms through their crackdown on Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang, cyber attacks against the U.S. and “economic coercion.”

“Each of these actions threaten the rules-based order that maintains global stability," Blinken said. "Our intent is to be direct about our concerns, direct about our priorities, with the goal of a more clear-eyed relationship between our countries moving forward.”

Sullivan added, "We do not seek conflict but we welcome stiff competition, and we will always stand up for our principles for our people, and for our friends."

China’s Yang Jiechi replied with a lengthy lecture against the U.S. that went on for so long the subsequent translation took 17 minutes. According to a senior official, there had been an agreement that each side would speak for two minutes at a photo opportunity before the session began.

"China is firmly opposed to U.S. interference in China's internal affairs. We have expressed our staunch opposition to such interference, and we will take firm actions in response of human rights. We hope that the United States will do better on human rights,” he said, referring to the Black Lives Matter movement in the U.S. “China has made steady progress in human rights."

He added, "And the United States has United States-style democracy. And China has Chinese-style democracy. It is not just up to the American people, but also the people of the world, to evaluate how the United States has done in advancing its own democracy in China's case, after decades of reform and opening up, we have come a long way in various fields."

Blinken then signaled for the news cameras to stay so that he could rebut the criticism of U.S democracy, noting the Chinese officials’ lengthy remarks. Sullivan followed suit. Blinken then attempted to dismiss the press pool but the Chinese officials insisted they be given the chance to offer their own second round.

This spat turned a four-minute photo-op into a diplomatic spat that lasted more than an hour.

You'll note that this was five months before the utter debacle of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan.

A new tone has been set for world-stage dynamics.

In a Washington Examiner piece that I can't get out of my head, Matthew Continetti puts it thusly:

China builds up its nuclear weapons cache as it sails a submarine through the Taiwan Strait. Russia shoots down a satellite as it builds up forces on the border of Ukraine. Vladimir Putin’s recent comments about Russia’s strong relationship with China are the most disturbing and underreported aspect of rising tensions in Eastern Europe. Putin and Xi Jinping seem to have assessed that America has become so decrepit, so inward-looking, so guilt-ridden and risk-averse that the moment has arrived to make the world safe for autocracy. Biden’s response is weak sauce. Holding a summit of democracies may be worthwhile. But it certainly is not a deterrent.

I've been thinking a lot lately about the relationship between the world as it really is - tangible, right in front of our noses, unfolding faster than explanations of it can be formulated - and the less concrete ways we're comfortable dealing with it: analysis, revisiting of our ideals, speculation.

Human history has been unfolding for some time, but it seems that we're still learning lessons from it afresh, and usually in the form of rude awakenings.