thenation--2020-08-19--What Populism Is and Is Not

What Populism Is and Is Not

As a writer , I consider Thomas Frank something of an idol .
Early issues of The Baffler , the magazine he cofounded in 1988 , were hugely influential to me as an adolescent , and his books on political culture—like The Wrecking Crew and Listen , Liberal—continued to influence me well into my adult years .
My own writing is what I call “ store-brand Thomas Frank , ” at its best a passable substitute for the real thing .
The People , No : The War on Populism and the Fight for Democracy But it was with some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his latest work , The People , No , a history of anti-populism from the founding of the People ’ s Party in 1892 to the Reagan years .
I had the nagging fear that the book could be his heel turn , a cringe-inducing “ Actually , Tom Cotton and Donald Trump are the real populists !
” take .
Fortunately , The People , No is not that .
Rather , it is a book that gets—in fact , obsesses over—what “ populism ” is and is not , historically and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long and impressive history in American politics , a record of achieving real , tangible improvements in the lives of working people , including progressive income taxes , the eight-hour workweek , direct election of senators , and the abandonment of the gold standard .
Frank identifies a pattern of elites ( or anti-populists ) who have perceived popular movements—early 20th century Progressives , labor activists , the civil rights movement—as threats to their own power and have responded by belittling those groups that have not met with their approval .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true populism represents the economic interests of the working class and , as such , is reliably detested and rejected by the upper classes ( hence the titular No ) .
Populism is not the practiced folksiness of a George W. Bush or Bill Clinton , whose man-of-the-people politics were merely a performance while his policies were always meant to serve moneyed interests .
Neither is populism synonymous with anti-elitism alone : Donald Trump sounded faux-populist notes in 2016 , but proceeded to govern like the id of the plutocracy when elected .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ gets called populism is not .
“ Right wing populism , ” with its top-down power hierarchy , is the latest incarnation of Father Coughlin or later-period Huey Long demagoguery , while the abundant use of populist language is a marketing strategy for an ideology based solidly in meritocratic deference to elites and experts .
It could come off as an exercise in semantics to parse the “ correct ” use of an ideological term in a country where some people consider Joe Biden a socialist and in which “ liberal ” means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” But there is something important here , as our present political discourse legitimizes the nationalist , authoritarian , antidemocratic right by calling it a true populist movement .
It should matter—it does matter—that the reactionary right and genuine populists share nothing but a superficial dislike of cultural elites .
Trump exudes that kind of resentment , spewing bile at the establishment that won ’ t embrace him , at magazines that won ’ t give him awards .
Anti-elitism , though , does not a populist make .
To elites , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ populist.
” Anyone who thinks Larry Summers is a fraud and the White House Correspondents ’ Dinner is a bunch of self-gratifying bullshit must be of the same ideological cloth .
Frank characterizes , correctly , the current state of American politics not as elites versus the masses but as two parties ( superficially liberal and conservative ) that represent warring factions among the elites .
The People , No is compelling in parts , with moments of real brilliance , but it makes the bizarre structural choice to follow the narrative of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then , literally in one sentence , to jump forward to 2016 with the assertion that the reader is already familiar with everything in between .
To Thomas Frank fans and readers of his previous books , that is probably true , or true enough .
For anyone else the jump-cut over 30 years of political history will seem strange .
When the narrative does reach the present and recent past , Frank ’ s focus becomes a bit scattershot .
My first impression was of a very good , thorough book about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an afterthought of a chapter on 2016–20 that incompletely ties that history to the present .
Frank ’ s take on Trump during and since 2016 is dead-on ; Trump is what the historian Reginald Swing called a “ pre-fascist , ” the type of crassly self-interested politician who desensitizes people to the language , gesture , and ideology of fascism .
The entirety of the conception of Trump as some flavor of populist is based on his ability to focus obsessively on his grievances : He hates The New York Times , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his complaints are rooted in the world of Page Six , in the way he perceives his mistreatment at the hands of the intellectual elite .
For the Democrats , struggling as ever to define who they are and what they stand for beyond “ Not the Republicans , ” Frank reaches the right conclusion the wrong way .
Without true economic populism as a central component of the Democratic message , much of modern liberalism , Frank tells us , amounts to what he characterizes as “ scolding.
” Scolding Trump voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people .
Scolding the left for failing to adhere to the liberal consensus that political change , if it can happen at all , must happen only gradually and in ways that do not threaten the wealthy or the powerful .
Calling liberals a bunch of scolds and dunking on them strikes me as well beneath the level of nuance Frank can handle and makes the closing chapter unsatisfying in this otherwise important discussion .
Absent any element of economic populism on the part of Democrats , the hollow populism of Trump appeals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades of government failure to meaningfully improve the lives of working people .
As little as Americans can afford to suffer four more years of Trump , four years of Biden , Pelosi , and Schumer cooling their heels and explaining why we can ’ t really change much of anything is as dangerous in the long term .
It only delays the inevitable : more phony anti-elitism posing as populism from the right , and further erosion of whatever remains in this political system and government that is worth saving .

As a writer, I consider Thomas Frank something of an idol. Early issues of The Baffler, the magazine he cofounded in 1988, were hugely influential to me as an adolescent, and his books on political culture—like The Wrecking Crew and Listen, Liberal—continued to influence me well into my adult years. My own writing is what I call “store-brand Thomas Frank,” at its best a passable substitute for the real thing. Books in Review The People, No: The War on Populism and the Fight for Democracy By Thomas Frank Buy this book
But it was with some hesitation that I approached a review of his latest work, The People, No, a history of anti-populism from the founding of the People’s Party in 1892 to the Reagan years. I had the nagging fear that the book could be his heel turn, a cringe-inducing “Actually, Tom Cotton and Donald Trump are the real populists!” take.
Fortunately, The People, No is not that. Rather, it is a book that gets—in fact, obsesses over—what “populism” is and is not, historically and in the present. Populism has a long and impressive history in American politics, a record of achieving real, tangible improvements in the lives of working people, including progressive income taxes, the eight-hour workweek, direct election of senators, and the abandonment of the gold standard. Frank identifies a pattern of elites (or anti-populists) who have perceived popular movements—early 20th century Progressives, labor activists, the civil rights movement—as threats to their own power and have responded by belittling those groups that have not met with their approval.
This is the fundamental premise for Frank: that true populism represents the economic interests of the working class and, as such, is reliably detested and rejected by the upper classes (hence the titular No). Populism is not the practiced folksiness of a George W. Bush or Bill Clinton, whose man-of-the-people politics were merely a performance while his policies were always meant to serve moneyed interests. Neither is populism synonymous with anti-elitism alone: Donald Trump sounded faux-populist notes in 2016, but proceeded to govern like the id of the plutocracy when elected. In short, a lot of what gets called populism is not. “Right wing populism,” with its top-down power hierarchy, is the latest incarnation of Father Coughlin or later-period Huey Long demagoguery, while the abundant use of populist language is a marketing strategy for an ideology based solidly in meritocratic deference to elites and experts.
It could come off as an exercise in semantics to parse the “correct” use of an ideological term in a country where some people consider Joe Biden a socialist and in which “liberal” means “anything I don’t like.” But there is something important here, as our present political discourse legitimizes the nationalist, authoritarian, antidemocratic right by calling it a true populist movement. It should matter—it does matter—that the reactionary right and genuine populists share nothing but a superficial dislike of cultural elites. Trump exudes that kind of resentment, spewing bile at the establishment that won’t embrace him, at magazines that won’t give him awards. Anti-elitism, though, does not a populist make. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
To elites, though, anything arraigned against them is “populist.” Anyone who thinks Larry Summers is a fraud and the White House Correspondents’ Dinner is a bunch of self-gratifying bullshit must be of the same ideological cloth. Frank characterizes, correctly, the current state of American politics not as elites versus the masses but as two parties (superficially liberal and conservative) that represent warring factions among the elites.
The People, No is compelling in parts, with moments of real brilliance, but it makes the bizarre structural choice to follow the narrative of American populism through the year 1988 and then, literally in one sentence, to jump forward to 2016 with the assertion that the reader is already familiar with everything in between. To Thomas Frank fans and readers of his previous books, that is probably true, or true enough. For anyone else the jump-cut over 30 years of political history will seem strange.
When the narrative does reach the present and recent past, Frank’s focus becomes a bit scattershot. My first impression was of a very good, thorough book about a century of American populism, with an afterthought of a chapter on 2016–20 that incompletely ties that history to the present. Frank’s take on Trump during and since 2016 is dead-on; Trump is what the historian Reginald Swing called a “pre-fascist,” the type of crassly self-interested politician who desensitizes people to the language, gesture, and ideology of fascism. The entirety of the conception of Trump as some flavor of populist is based on his ability to focus obsessively on his grievances: He hates The New York Times, just as his supporters do. But his complaints are rooted in the world of Page Six, in the way he perceives his mistreatment at the hands of the intellectual elite.
For the Democrats, struggling as ever to define who they are and what they stand for beyond “Not the Republicans,” Frank reaches the right conclusion the wrong way. Without true economic populism as a central component of the Democratic message, much of modern liberalism, Frank tells us, amounts to what he characterizes as “scolding.” Scolding Trump voters for being bad, ignorant, unenlightened people. Scolding the left for failing to adhere to the liberal consensus that political change, if it can happen at all, must happen only gradually and in ways that do not threaten the wealthy or the powerful. Calling liberals a bunch of scolds and dunking on them strikes me as well beneath the level of nuance Frank can handle and makes the closing chapter unsatisfying in this otherwise important discussion.
Absent any element of economic populism on the part of Democrats, the hollow populism of Trump appeals to people whose experience is rooted in decades of government failure to meaningfully improve the lives of working people. As little as Americans can afford to suffer four more years of Trump, four years of Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer cooling their heels and explaining why we can’t really change much of anything is as dangerous in the long term. It only delays the inevitable: more phony anti-elitism posing as populism from the right, and further erosion of whatever remains in this political system and government that is worth saving.


thenation--2020-08-19--This Is What Dystopia Looks Like

This Is What Dystopia Looks Like

hicago , ll.—Jamila had never officially been my student .
In September 2017 , she had marched into my classroom because she wanted to meet “ the new Black English teacher , ” a rarity at my school , where the staff is predominately white , despite being on the South Side of Chicago in one of its “ toughest ” neighborhoods .
In my mind , she was ready for college .
At the age of 16 , she was already adept at making jokes about “ toxic masculinity , ” and already had a catalogue of her favorite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the next three years , she and I held several discussions about family , her future , race , gender , and writing .
She was intentional about performing her existence as an act of defiance .
She opted for bold short haircuts , wore oversize thrift store clothes , and was popular in school for her slam poetry .
She was the type of student who gave you hope for the future .
She was charming and bombastic , with a voice that you could hear long before you saw her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Want Solidarity , Not Sentiment—or Blame More in this series And it ’ s beautiful to see a child grow via her relationship to art .
In the 10th grade , she just wanted to share her poetry .
Now in her senior year , she talked about the intention of her poems .
These intentions began to bleed into her own decision making .
Decisions like choosing to stay at home for college rather than going away .
Or choosing whether to accept her mom ’ s discomfort with her gender performance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complaints , she was growing into an assertive adult who made adult decisions .
Like many teachers , I wanted to see her growth as a reflection of my own energy and attention as well .
I felt that seeing her walk across the stage would be a culminating moment .
I didn ’ t imagine my last time seeing her would be in June of 2020—she , riding alongside her mom in a small , bare brown car ; me , masked , distant on the sidewalk alongside other teachers cheering at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Chicago Public Schools ’ officially closing in mid-March , so it had been approximately three months since I had last heard from her , and in a rush of excitement I ran toward the car , thinking to myself that an “ air high five ” would be the best I could offer at that moment .
As I got midway to the car , her mother ’ s smiling face dissolved into a frown , and sense swarmed back into my brain .
Why would you run toward the car during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know you were just gon na give an air high five .
I halted and threw my palms in the air , in a gesture that was now equal parts high five and surrender .
Jamila threw hers up as well and smiled .
I retreated to the sidewalk to continue cheering on the other graduating students .
The brown car moved on .
It was gorgeous outside .
It was the type of sunny that makes you aware of the silhouettes of the trees against the concrete .
Despite being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the car graduation to be a beautiful moment of innovation .
Cars in procession , most accented with maroon and gold balloons and paint , or Class of 2020 , or my students ’ names spiraling along the windows .
Amid the noise of celebration , my students looked out from the car windows , popped up through sunroofs , rode on the back of pickup trucks .
What I had thought would be a bland substitute was a rather regal event .
My students had turned their cars into chariots .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their shoulders erect , their hair flapping in the wind .
I left the graduation early .
My car was parked on a crowded street , and I didn ’ t want to be trapped when the procession finished .
Inwardly I was embarrassed for my impulse , since there ’ s no room to be impulsive during a pandemic .
When everything stops rather than finishes , you have no choice but to be intentional .
This month , Chicago Public Schools rolled back its idea of a “ hybrid ” model @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been initially announced with a tone of certainty that anyone actually working within CPS knew not to trust .
In that model , students would ’ ve spent part of their time in remote learning and part of their time at school , with parents able to opt out of in-person learning altogether .
I wonder about what exactly would have been hybridized , since this model would ’ ve had my time split between a computer screen and an ill-ventilated building , with students split six feet apart , with split resources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CPS ’ s deciding to go fully remote beginning September 8 , because of the lack of clear direction I still feel split , like I ’ m still alone midway in that street between a frowning face and cheering .
I start every year teaching a unit on dystopia , where the joy is meant to be found in realizing how dystopic our society really is .
The irony is palpable in this moment .
In fictional dystopias , however , clarity is abundant .
There is a clear social ill that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past and present , a clear enemy ; and it ’ s clear when the revolution needs to happen .
There is a beginning and an end .
In a real-life dystopia , no one really has the answers , so there are no real endings or beginnings .
Just a procession of limbos .
In a real-life dystopia , apocalypse still hits , and sometimes it comes in a familiar form : an explosion , a natural disaster , or a revolution .
Sometimes , the apocalypse is just an air high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you have to keep going .
I set up my new makeshift workspace in the corner of my living room .
It consists of a small circular table sitting by the largest windows in the house .
I prepare for the year .
I think of my students .
I reflect on what I want to do differently .
I flirt with the idea of starting a YouTube channel .
I brainstorm how to teach a novel over the computer .
I groan at work e-mails .
I worry , and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I remember , I take a deep breath .
Scenes From a Pandemic is a collaboration between The Nation and Kopkind , a living memorial to radical journalist Andrew Kopkind , who from 1982–94 was the magazine ’ s chief political writer and analyst .
This series of dispatches from Kopkind ’ s far-flung network of participants , advisers , guests , and friends is edited by Nation contributor and Kopkind program director JoAnn Wypijewski , and appears weekly on thenation.com and kopkind.org .

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nation believes that helping readers stay informed about the impact of the coronavirus crisis is a form of public service. For that reason, this article, and all of our coronavirus coverage, is now free. Please subscribe to support our writers and staff, and stay healthy.
C hicago, I ll.—Jamila had never officially been my student.
In September 2017, she had marched into my classroom because she wanted to meet “the new Black English teacher,” a rarity at my school, where the staff is predominately white, despite being on the South Side of Chicago in one of its “toughest” neighborhoods.
In my mind, she was ready for college. At the age of 16, she was already adept at making jokes about “toxic masculinity,” and already had a catalogue of her favorite Black feminist poets. Over the course of the next three years, she and I held several discussions about family, her future, race, gender, and writing.
She was intentional about performing her existence as an act of defiance. She opted for bold short haircuts, wore oversize thrift store clothes, and was popular in school for her slam poetry. She was the type of student who gave you hope for the future. She was charming and bombastic, with a voice that you could hear long before you saw her. Scenes From a Pandemic Untethered, or The Year of Living Virtually Patricia J. Williams The Art of the Meal Mary Lewis Maybe We Shouldn’t Go Back to Normal Bri M.
And it’s beautiful to see a child grow via her relationship to art. In the 10th grade, she just wanted to share her poetry. Now in her senior year, she talked about the intention of her poems. These intentions began to bleed into her own decision making. Decisions like choosing to stay at home for college rather than going away. Or choosing whether to accept her mom’s discomfort with her gender performance. Once an angsty teenager full of complaints, she was growing into an assertive adult who made adult decisions. Like many teachers, I wanted to see her growth as a reflection of my own energy and attention as well. I felt that seeing her walk across the stage would be a culminating moment.
I didn’t imagine my last time seeing her would be in June of 2020—she, riding alongside her mom in a small, bare brown car; me, masked, distant on the sidewalk alongside other teachers cheering at the car-parade graduation. Covid had led to Chicago Public Schools ’officially closing in mid-March, so it had been approximately three months since I had last heard from her, and in a rush of excitement I ran toward the car, thinking to myself that an “air high five” would be the best I could offer at that moment.
As I got midway to the car, her mother’s smiling face dissolved into a frown, and sense swarmed back into my brain. Why would you run toward the car during Covid? Of course, Mom doesn’t know you were just gonna give an air high five. I halted and threw my palms in the air, in a gesture that was now equal parts high five and surrender. Jamila threw hers up as well and smiled. I retreated to the sidewalk to continue cheering on the other graduating students. The brown car moved on. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Current Issue View our current issue
It was gorgeous outside. It was the type of sunny that makes you aware of the silhouettes of the trees against the concrete. Despite being prepared to be sad, I found the car graduation to be a beautiful moment of innovation. Cars in procession, most accented with maroon and gold balloons and paint, or Class of 2020, or my students’ names spiraling along the windows. Amid the noise of celebration, my students looked out from the car windows, popped up through sunroofs, rode on the back of pickup trucks. What I had thought would be a bland substitute was a rather regal event. My students had turned their cars into chariots. Some soaked the moment in fully, with their shoulders erect, their hair flapping in the wind.
I left the graduation early. My car was parked on a crowded street, and I didn’t want to be trapped when the procession finished. Inwardly I was embarrassed for my impulse, since there’s no room to be impulsive during a pandemic. When everything stops rather than finishes, you have no choice but to be intentional.
This month, Chicago Public Schools rolled back its idea of a “hybrid” model of schooling, a concept that had been initially announced with a tone of certainty that anyone actually working within CPS knew not to trust. In that model, students would’ve spent part of their time in remote learning and part of their time at school, with parents able to opt out of in-person learning altogether. I wonder about what exactly would have been hybridized, since this model would’ve had my time split between a computer screen and an ill-ventilated building, with students split six feet apart, with split resources, and split investment. And despite CPS’s deciding to go fully remote beginning September 8, because of the lack of clear direction I still feel split, like I’m still alone midway in that street between a frowning face and cheering.
I start every year teaching a unit on dystopia, where the joy is meant to be found in realizing how dystopic our society really is. The irony is palpable in this moment. In fictional dystopias, however, clarity is abundant. There is a clear social ill that plagues society, a clear sense of past and present, a clear enemy; and it’s clear when the revolution needs to happen. There is a beginning and an end. In a real-life dystopia, no one really has the answers, so there are no real endings or beginnings. Just a procession of limbos. In a real-life dystopia, apocalypse still hits, and sometimes it comes in a familiar form: an explosion, a natural disaster, or a revolution. Sometimes, the apocalypse is just an air high five instead of a hug. Nevertheless, you have to keep going.
I set up my new makeshift workspace in the corner of my living room. It consists of a small circular table sitting by the largest windows in the house. I prepare for the year. I think of my students. I reflect on what I want to do differently. I flirt with the idea of starting a YouTube channel. I brainstorm how to teach a novel over the computer. I groan at work e-mails. I worry, and then I don’t. And when I remember, I take a deep breath.
Scenes From a Pandemic is a collaboration between The Nation and Kopkind, a living memorial to radical journalist Andrew Kopkind, who from 1982–94 was the magazine’s chief political writer and analyst. This series of dispatches from Kopkind’s far-flung network of participants, advisers, guests, and friends is edited by Nation contributor and Kopkind program director JoAnn Wypijewski, and appears weekly on thenation.com and kopkind.org.


thenation--2020-08-19--Trump Is Losing the Tech War Against China

For the Trump administration ’ s senior officials , it ’ s been open season on bashing China .
If you need an example , think of the president ’ s blame game about “ the invisible Chinese virus ” as it spreads wildly across the United States .
When it comes to China , in fact , the ever more virulent criticism never seems to stop .
Between the end of June and the end of July , four members of his cabinet vied with each other in spewing anti-Chinese rhetoric .
That particular spate of China bashing started @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Xi Jinping as the successor to Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin .
It was capped by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ’ s clarion call to US allies to note the “ bankrupt ” Marxist-Leninist ideology of China ’ s leader and the urge to “ global hegemony ” that goes with it , insisting that they would have to choose “ between freedom and tyranny.
” ( Forget which country on this planet actually claims global hegemony as its right . )
At the same time , the Pentagon deployed its aircraft @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the South China Sea and elsewhere in the Pacific .
The question is : What lies behind this upsurge in Trump administration China baiting ?
A likely answer can be found in the president ’ s blunt statement in a July interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News that “ I ’ m not a good loser .
I don ’ t like to lose.
” The reality is that , under Donald Trump , the United States is indeed losing to China in two important spheres .
As the FBI ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economic and technical terms [ China ] is already a peer competitor of the United States…in a very different kind of [ globalized ] world.
” In other words , China is rising and the United States is falling .
Don ’ t just blame Trump and his cronies for that , however , as this moment has been a long time coming .
Facts speak for themselves .
Nearly unscathed by the 2008–09 global recession , China displaced Japan as the world ’ s second largest economy in August 2010 .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of imports and exports , it overtook the US total of $ 3.82 trillion , elbowing it out of a position it had held for 60 years as the number one cross-border trading nation worldwide .
By the end of 2014 , China ’ s gross domestic product , as measured by purchasing power parity , was $ 17.6 trillion , slightly exceeding the $ 17.4 trillion of the United States , which had been the globe ’ s largest economy since 1872 .
In May 2015 , the Chinese government released a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rapidly developing 10 high-tech industries , including electric cars , next-generation information technology , telecommunications , advanced robotics , and artificial intelligence .
Other major sectors covered in the plan included agricultural technology , aerospace engineering , the development of new synthetic materials , the emerging field of biomedicine , and high-speed rail infrastructure .
The plan was aimed at achieving 70 percent percent self-sufficiency in high-tech industries and a dominant position in such global markets by 2049 , a century after the founding of the People ’ s Republic of China Semiconductors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in 2014 , the government ’ s national integrated circuit industry development guidelines set a target : China was to become a global leader in semiconductors by 2030 .
In 2018 , the local chip industry moved up from basic silicon packing and testing to higher value chip design and manufacturing .
The following year , the U.S. Semiconductor Industry Association noted that , while America led the world with nearly half of global market share , China was the main threat to its position because of huge state investments in commercial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the United States had already fallen behind China in just such scientific and technological research .
A study by Nanjing University ’ s Qingnan Xie and Harvard University ’ s Richard Freeman noted that between 2000 and 2016 , China ’ s share of global publications in the physical sciences , engineering , and math quadrupled , exceeding that of the United States .
In 2019 , for the first time since figures for patents were compiled in 1978 , the United States failed to file for the largest number of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Organization , China filed applications for 58,990 patents and the United States 57,840 .
In addition , for the third year in a row , the Chinese high-tech corporation Huawei Technologies Company , with 4,144 patents , was well ahead of US-based Qualcomm ( 2,127 ) .
Among educational institutions , the University of California maintained its top rank with 470 published applications , but Tsinghua University ranked second with 265 .
Of the top five universities in the world , three were Chinese .
By 2019 , the leaders in consumer technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Amazon , and Microsoft ; in China , the leaders were Alibaba ( founded by Jack Ma ) , Tencent ( Tengxun in Chinese ) , Xiaomi , and Baidu .
All had been launched by private citizens .
Among the US companies , Microsoft was established in 1975 , Apple in 1976 , Amazon in 1994 , and Google in September 1998 .
The earliest Chinese tech giant , Tencent , was established two months after Google , followed by Alibaba in 1999 , Baidu in 2000 , and Xiaomi , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China first entered cyberspace in 1994 , its government left intact its policy of controlling information through censorship by the Ministry of Public Security .
In 1996 , the country established a high-tech industrial development zone in Shenzhen , just across the Pearl River from Hong Kong , the first of what would be a number of special economic zones .
From 2002 on , they would begin attracting Western multinational corporations keen to take advantage of their tax-free provisions and low-wage skilled workers .
By 2008 , such foreign companies accounted for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exports .
Shaken by an official 2005 report that found serious flaws in the country ’ s innovation system , the government issued a policy paper the following year listing 20 mega-projects in nanotechnology , high-end generic microchips , aircraft , biotechnology , and new drugs .
It then focused on a bottom-up approach to innovation , involving small start-ups , venture capital , and cooperation between industry and universities , a strategy that would take a few years to yield positive results .
In January 2000 , less than 2 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to that market , Robin Li and Eric Xu set up Baidu in Beijing as a Chinese search engine .
By 2009 , in its competition with Google China , a subsidiary of Google operating under government censorship , Baidu garnered twice the market share of its American rival as Internet penetration leapt to 29 percent .
In the aftermath of the 2008–09 global financial meltdown , significant numbers of Chinese engineers and entrepreneurs returned from Silicon Valley to play an important role in the mushrooming of high-tech firms in a vast Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other Western corporations because of their unwillingness to operate under government censorship .
Soon after Xi Jinping became president in March 2013 , his government launched a campaign to promote “ mass entrepreneurship and mass innovation ” using state-backed venture capital .
That was when Tencent came up with its super app WeChat , a multi-purpose platform for socializing , playing games , paying bills , booking train tickets , and so on .
Jack Ma ’ s e-commerce behemoth Alibaba went public on the New York Stock Exchange in September 2014 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its initial public offering .
By the end of the decade , Baidu had diversified into the field of artificial intelligence , while expanding its multiple Internet-related services and products .
As the search engine of choice for 90 percent of Chinese Internet users , more than 700 million people , the company became the fifth most visited website in cyberspace , its mobile users exceeding 1.1 billion .
Xiaomi Corporation would release its first smartphone in August 2011 .
By 2014 , it had forged ahead of its Chinese rivals in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phone chip capabilities .
In 2019 , it sold 125 million mobile phones , ranking fourth globally .
By the middle of 2019 , China had 206 privately held start-ups valued at more than $ 1 billion , besting the United States with 203 .
Among the country ’ s many successful entrepreneurs , the one who particularly stood out was Jack Ma , born Ma Yun in 1964 .
Though he failed to get a job at a newly opened Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet in his home city of Hangzhou , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ college after his third attempt , buying his first computer at the age of 31 .
In 1999 , he founded Alibaba with a group of friends .
It would become one of the most valuable tech companies in the world .
On his 55th birthday , he was the second richest man in China with a net worth of $ 42.1 billion .
Born in the same year as Ma , his American counterpart , Jeff Bezos , gained a degree in electrical engineering and computer science from Princeton University .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ books online , before entering e-commerce and other fields .
Amazon Web Services , a cloud computing company , would become the globe ’ s largest .
In 2007 , Amazon released a handheld reading device called the Kindle .
Three years later , it ventured into making its own television shows and movies .
In 2014 , it launched Amazon Echo , a smart speaker with a voice assistant named Alexa that let its owner instantly play music , control a Smart home , get information , news , weather , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 145.4 billion in 2019 , Bezos became the richest person on the planet .
Deploying an artificial intelligence inference chip to power features on its e-commerce sites , Alibaba categorized a billion product images uploaded by vendors to its e-commerce platform daily and prepared them for search and personalized recommendations to its customer base of 500 million .
By allowing outside vendors to use its platform for a fee , Amazon increased its items for sale to 350 million—with 197 million people accessing Amazon.com each month .
China also led the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place .
In 2019 , such transactions in China amounted to $ 80.5 trillion .
Because of the Covid-19 pandemic , the authorities encouraged customers to use mobile payment , online payment , and barcode payment to avoid the risk of infection .
The projected total for mobile payments : $ 111.1 trillion .
The corresponding figures for the United States at $ 130 billion look puny by comparison .
In August 2012 , the founder of the Beijing-based ByteDance , 29-year-old Zhang Yiming , broke new ground in aggregating news for its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Today ’ s Headlines ) tracked users ’ behavior across thousands of sites to form an opinion of what would interest them most , and then recommended stories .
By 2016 , it had already acquired 78 million users , 90 percent of them under 30 .
In September 2016 , ByteDance launched a short-video app in China called Douyin that gained 100 million users within a year .
It would soon enter a few Asian markets as TikTok .
In November 2017 , for $ 1 billion , ByteDance would purchase Musical.ly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for video creation , messaging , and live broadcasting , and set up an office in California .
Zhang merged it into TikTok in August 2018 to give his company a larger footprint in the United States and then spent nearly $ 1 billion to promote TikTok as the platform for sharing short-dance , lip-sync , comedy , and talent videos .
It has been downloaded by 165 million Americans and driven the Trump administration to distraction .
A Generation Z craze , in April 2020 it surpassed two billion downloads globally , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Trump ( no loser he ! )
and his top officials to attack it and he would sign executive orders attempting to ban both TikTok and WeChat from operating in the United States or being used by Americans ( unless sold to a US tech giant ) .
Stay tuned .
But the biggest Chinese winner in consumer electronics and telecommunications has been Shenzhen-based Huawei Technologies Company , the country ’ s first global multinational .
It has become a pivot point in the geopolitical battle between Beijing and Washington .
Huawei @ @ @ @ @ @ @ splendid achievement ” ) makes phones and the routers that facilitate communications around the world .
Established in 1987 , its current workforce of 194,000 operates in 170 countries .
In 2019 , its annual turn-over was $ 122.5 billion .
In 2012 , it outstripped its nearest rival , the 136-year-old Ericsson Telephone Corporation of Sweden , to become the world ’ s largest supplier of telecommunications equipment with 28 percent of market share globally .
In 2019 , it forged ahead of Apple to become the second largest phone maker after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Huawei ’ s stratospheric rise : its business model , the personality and decision-making mode of its founder Ren Zhengfei , state policies on high-tech industry , and the firm ’ s exclusive ownership by its employees .
Born in 1944 in Guizhou Province , Ren Zhengfei went to Chongqing University and then joined a military research institute during Mao Zedong ’ s chaotic Cultural Revolution ( 1966-1976 ) .
He was demobilized in 1983 when China cut back on its engineering corps .
But the army ’ s slogan , “ fight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He moved to the city of Shenzhen and worked in the country ’ s infant electronics sector for four years , saving enough to co-found what would become the tech giant Huawei .
He focused on research and development , adapting technologies from Western firms , while his new company received small orders from the military and later substantial R & D ( research and development ) grants from the state to develop GSM ( Global System for Mobile Communication ) phones and other products .
Over the years , the company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ third generation ( 3G ) and fourth generation ( 4G ) smartphones .
As China ’ s high-tech industry surged , Huawei ’ s fortunes rose .
In 2010 , it hired IBM and Accenture PLC to design the means of managing networks for telecom providers .
In 2011 , the company hired the Boston Consulting Group to advise it on foreign acquisitions and investments .
Like many successful American entrepreneurs , Ren has given top priority to the customer and , in the absence of the usual near-term pressure to raise income @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invested $ 15 to 20 billion annually in research and development work .
That helps explain how Huawei became one of the globe ’ s five companies in the fifth generation ( 5G ) smartphone business , topping the list by shipping out 6.9 million phones in 2019 and capturing 36.9 percent of the market .
On the eve of the release of 5G phones , Ren revealed that Huawei had a staggering 2,570 5G patents .
So it was unsurprising that in the global race for 5G , Huawei was the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2019 .
One hundred times faster than its 4G predecessors , 5G tops out at 10 gigabits per second and future 5G networks are expected to link a huge array of devices from cars to washing machines to door bells .
Huawei ’ s exponential success has increasingly alarmed a Trump administration edging ever closer to conflict with China .
Last month , Secretary of State Pompeo described Huawei as “ an arm of the Chinese Communist Party ’ s surveillance state that censors political dissidents and enables mass internment camps in Xinjiang.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commerce Department banned American firms from supplying components and software to Huawei on national security grounds .
A year later , it imposed a ban on Huawei buying microchips from American companies or using US-designed software .
The White House also launched a global campaign against the installation of the company ’ s 5G systems in allied nations , with mixed success .
Ren continued to deny such charges and to oppose Washington ’ s moves , which have so far failed to slow his company ’ s commercial advance .
Its revenue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 65 billion , was up by 13.1 percent over the previous year .
From tariffs on Chinese products and that recent TikTok ban to slurs about the “ kung flu ” as the Covid-19 pandemic swept America , President Trump and his team have been expressing their mounting frustration over China and ramping up attacks on an inexorably rising power on the global stage .
Whether they know it or not , the American century is over , which doesn ’ t mean that nothing can be done to improve the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Setting aside Washington ’ s belief in the inherent superiority of America , a future administration could stop hurling insults or trying to ban enviably successful Chinese tech firms and instead emulate the Chinese example by formulating and implementing a well-planned , long-term high-tech strategy .
But as the Covid-19 pandemic has made abundantly clear , the very idea of planning is not a concept available to the “ very stable genius ” presently in the White House .

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
For the Trump administration’s senior officials, it’s been open season on bashing China. If you need an example, think of the president’s blame game about “the invisible Chinese virus” as it spreads wildly across the United States.
When it comes to China, in fact, the ever more virulent criticism never seems to stop.
Between the end of June and the end of July, four members of his cabinet vied with each other in spewing anti-Chinese rhetoric. That particular spate of China bashing started when FBI Director Christopher Wray described Chinese President Xi Jinping as the successor to Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. It was capped by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s clarion call to US allies to note the “bankrupt” Marxist-Leninist ideology of China’s leader and the urge to “global hegemony” that goes with it, insisting that they would have to choose “between freedom and tyranny.” (Forget which country on this planet actually claims global hegemony as its right.)
At the same time, the Pentagon deployed its aircraft carriers and other weaponry ever more threateningly in the South China Sea and elsewhere in the Pacific. The question is: What lies behind this upsurge in Trump administration China baiting? A likely answer can be found in the president’s blunt statement in a July interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News that “I’m not a good loser. I don’t like to lose.”
The reality is that, under Donald Trump, the United States is indeed losing to China in two important spheres. As the FBI’s Wray put it, “In economic and technical terms [China] is already a peer competitor of the United States…in a very different kind of [globalized] world.” In other words, China is rising and the United States is falling. Don’t just blame Trump and his cronies for that, however, as this moment has been a long time coming. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
Facts speak for themselves. Nearly unscathed by the 2008–09 global recession, China displaced Japan as the world’s second largest economy in August 2010. In 2012, with $3.87 trillion worth of imports and exports, it overtook the US total of $3.82 trillion, elbowing it out of a position it had held for 60 years as the number one cross-border trading nation worldwide. By the end of 2014, China’s gross domestic product, as measured by purchasing power parity, was $17.6 trillion, slightly exceeding the $17.4 trillion of the United States, which had been the globe’s largest economy since 1872.
In May 2015, the Chinese government released a Made in China 2025 plan aimed at rapidly developing 10 high-tech industries, including electric cars, next-generation information technology, telecommunications, advanced robotics, and artificial intelligence. Other major sectors covered in the plan included agricultural technology, aerospace engineering, the development of new synthetic materials, the emerging field of biomedicine, and high-speed rail infrastructure. The plan was aimed at achieving 70 percent percent self-sufficiency in high-tech industries and a dominant position in such global markets by 2049, a century after the founding of the People’s Republic of China Current Issue View our current issue
Semiconductors are crucial to all electronic products and, in 2014, the government’s national integrated circuit industry development guidelines set a target: China was to become a global leader in semiconductors by 2030. In 2018, the local chip industry moved up from basic silicon packing and testing to higher value chip design and manufacturing. The following year, the U.S. Semiconductor Industry Association noted that, while America led the world with nearly half of global market share, China was the main threat to its position because of huge state investments in commercial manufacturing and scientific research.
By then, the United States had already fallen behind China in just such scientific and technological research. A study by Nanjing University’s Qingnan Xie and Harvard University’s Richard Freeman noted that between 2000 and 2016, China’s share of global publications in the physical sciences, engineering, and math quadrupled, exceeding that of the United States.
In 2019, for the first time since figures for patents were compiled in 1978, the United States failed to file for the largest number of them. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, China filed applications for 58,990 patents and the United States 57,840. In addition, for the third year in a row, the Chinese high-tech corporation Huawei Technologies Company, with 4,144 patents, was well ahead of US-based Qualcomm (2,127). Among educational institutions, the University of California maintained its top rank with 470 published applications, but Tsinghua University ranked second with 265. Of the top five universities in the world, three were Chinese.
The Neck-and-Neck Race in Consumer Electronics
By 2019, the leaders in consumer technology in America included Google, Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft; in China, the leaders were Alibaba (founded by Jack Ma), Tencent (Tengxun in Chinese), Xiaomi, and Baidu. All had been launched by private citizens. Among the US companies, Microsoft was established in 1975, Apple in 1976, Amazon in 1994, and Google in September 1998. The earliest Chinese tech giant, Tencent, was established two months after Google, followed by Alibaba in 1999, Baidu in 2000, and Xiaomi, a hardware producer, in 2010. When China first entered cyberspace in 1994, its government left intact its policy of controlling information through censorship by the Ministry of Public Security.
In 1996, the country established a high-tech industrial development zone in Shenzhen, just across the Pearl River from Hong Kong, the first of what would be a number of special economic zones. From 2002 on, they would begin attracting Western multinational corporations keen to take advantage of their tax-free provisions and low-wage skilled workers. By 2008, such foreign companies accounted for 85 percent of China’s high-tech exports.
Shaken by an official 2005 report that found serious flaws in the country’s innovation system, the government issued a policy paper the following year listing 20 mega-projects in nanotechnology, high-end generic microchips, aircraft, biotechnology, and new drugs. It then focused on a bottom-up approach to innovation, involving small start-ups, venture capital, and cooperation between industry and universities, a strategy that would take a few years to yield positive results.
In January 2000, less than 2 percent of Chinese used the Internet. To cater to that market, Robin Li and Eric Xu set up Baidu in Beijing as a Chinese search engine. By 2009, in its competition with Google China, a subsidiary of Google operating under government censorship, Baidu garnered twice the market share of its American rival as Internet penetration leapt to 29 percent.
In the aftermath of the 2008–09 global financial meltdown, significant numbers of Chinese engineers and entrepreneurs returned from Silicon Valley to play an important role in the mushrooming of high-tech firms in a vast Chinese market increasingly walled off from US and other Western corporations because of their unwillingness to operate under government censorship.
Soon after Xi Jinping became president in March 2013, his government launched a campaign to promote “mass entrepreneurship and mass innovation” using state-backed venture capital. That was when Tencent came up with its super app WeChat, a multi-purpose platform for socializing, playing games, paying bills, booking train tickets, and so on.
Jack Ma’s e-commerce behemoth Alibaba went public on the New York Stock Exchange in September 2014, raising a record $25 billion with its initial public offering. By the end of the decade, Baidu had diversified into the field of artificial intelligence, while expanding its multiple Internet-related services and products. As the search engine of choice for 90 percent of Chinese Internet users, more than 700 million people, the company became the fifth most visited website in cyberspace, its mobile users exceeding 1.1 billion.
Xiaomi Corporation would release its first smartphone in August 2011. By 2014, it had forged ahead of its Chinese rivals in the domestic market and developed its own mobile phone chip capabilities. In 2019, it sold 125 million mobile phones, ranking fourth globally. By the middle of 2019, China had 206 privately held start-ups valued at more than $1 billion, besting the United States with 203.
Among the country’s many successful entrepreneurs, the one who particularly stood out was Jack Ma, born Ma Yun in 1964. Though he failed to get a job at a newly opened Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet in his home city of Hangzhou, he did finally gain entry to a local college after his third attempt, buying his first computer at the age of 31. In 1999, he founded Alibaba with a group of friends. It would become one of the most valuable tech companies in the world. On his 55th birthday, he was the second richest man in China with a net worth of $42.1 billion.
Born in the same year as Ma, his American counterpart, Jeff Bezos, gained a degree in electrical engineering and computer science from Princeton University. He would found Amazon.com in 1994 to sell books online, before entering e-commerce and other fields. Amazon Web Services, a cloud computing company, would become the globe’s largest. In 2007, Amazon released a handheld reading device called the Kindle. Three years later, it ventured into making its own television shows and movies. In 2014, it launched Amazon Echo, a smart speaker with a voice assistant named Alexa that let its owner instantly play music, control a Smart home, get information, news, weather, and more. With a net worth of $145.4 billion in 2019, Bezos became the richest person on the planet.
Deploying an artificial intelligence inference chip to power features on its e-commerce sites, Alibaba categorized a billion product images uploaded by vendors to its e-commerce platform daily and prepared them for search and personalized recommendations to its customer base of 500 million. By allowing outside vendors to use its platform for a fee, Amazon increased its items for sale to 350 million—with 197 million people accessing Amazon.com each month.
China also led the world in mobile payments with America in sixth place. In 2019, such transactions in China amounted to $80.5 trillion. Because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the authorities encouraged customers to use mobile payment, online payment, and barcode payment to avoid the risk of infection. The projected total for mobile payments: $111.1 trillion. The corresponding figures for the United States at $130 billion look puny by comparison.
In August 2012, the founder of the Beijing-based ByteDance, 29-year-old Zhang Yiming, broke new ground in aggregating news for its users. His product, Toutiao (Today’s Headlines) tracked users’ behavior across thousands of sites to form an opinion of what would interest them most, and then recommended stories.
By 2016, it had already acquired 78 million users, 90 percent of them under 30.
In September 2016, ByteDance launched a short-video app in China called Douyin that gained 100 million users within a year. It would soon enter a few Asian markets as TikTok. In November 2017, for $1 billion, ByteDance would purchase Musical.ly, a Shanghai-based Chinese social network app for video creation, messaging, and live broadcasting, and set up an office in California.
Zhang merged it into TikTok in August 2018 to give his company a larger footprint in the United States and then spent nearly $1 billion to promote TikTok as the platform for sharing short-dance, lip-sync, comedy, and talent videos. It has been downloaded by 165 million Americans and driven the Trump administration to distraction. A Generation Z craze, in April 2020 it surpassed two billion downloads globally, eclipsing US tech giants. That led President Trump (no loser he!) and his top officials to attack it and he would sign executive orders attempting to ban both TikTok and WeChat from operating in the United States or being used by Americans (unless sold to a US tech giant). Stay tuned.
Huawei’s Octane-Powered Rise
But the biggest Chinese winner in consumer electronics and telecommunications has been Shenzhen-based Huawei Technologies Company, the country’s first global multinational. It has become a pivot point in the geopolitical battle between Beijing and Washington.
Huawei (in Chinese, it means “splendid achievement”) makes phones and the routers that facilitate communications around the world. Established in 1987, its current workforce of 194,000 operates in 170 countries. In 2019, its annual turn-over was $122.5 billion. In 2012, it outstripped its nearest rival, the 136-year-old Ericsson Telephone Corporation of Sweden, to become the world’s largest supplier of telecommunications equipment with 28 percent of market share globally. In 2019, it forged ahead of Apple to become the second largest phone maker after Samsung.
Several factors have contributed to Huawei’s stratospheric rise: its business model, the personality and decision-making mode of its founder Ren Zhengfei, state policies on high-tech industry, and the firm’s exclusive ownership by its employees.
Born in 1944 in Guizhou Province, Ren Zhengfei went to Chongqing University and then joined a military research institute during Mao Zedong’s chaotic Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). He was demobilized in 1983 when China cut back on its engineering corps. But the army’s slogan, “fight and survive,” stayed with him. He moved to the city of Shenzhen and worked in the country’s infant electronics sector for four years, saving enough to co-found what would become the tech giant Huawei. He focused on research and development, adapting technologies from Western firms, while his new company received small orders from the military and later substantial R&D (research and development) grants from the state to develop GSM (Global System for Mobile Communication) phones and other products. Over the years, the company produced telecommunications infrastructure and commercial products for third generation (3G) and fourth generation (4G) smartphones.
As China’s high-tech industry surged, Huawei’s fortunes rose. In 2010, it hired IBM and Accenture PLC to design the means of managing networks for telecom providers. In 2011, the company hired the Boston Consulting Group to advise it on foreign acquisitions and investments.
Like many successful American entrepreneurs, Ren has given top priority to the customer and, in the absence of the usual near-term pressure to raise income and profits, his management team has invested $15 to 20 billion annually in research and development work. That helps explain how Huawei became one of the globe’s five companies in the fifth generation (5G) smartphone business, topping the list by shipping out 6.9 million phones in 2019 and capturing 36.9 percent of the market. On the eve of the release of 5G phones, Ren revealed that Huawei had a staggering 2,570 5G patents.
So it was unsurprising that in the global race for 5G, Huawei was the first to roll out commercial products in February 2019. One hundred times faster than its 4G predecessors, 5G tops out at 10 gigabits per second and future 5G networks are expected to link a huge array of devices from cars to washing machines to door bells.
Huawei’s exponential success has increasingly alarmed a Trump administration edging ever closer to conflict with China. Last month, Secretary of State Pompeo described Huawei as “an arm of the Chinese Communist Party’s surveillance state that censors political dissidents and enables mass internment camps in Xinjiang.”
In May 2019, the US Commerce Department banned American firms from supplying components and software to Huawei on national security grounds. A year later, it imposed a ban on Huawei buying microchips from American companies or using US-designed software. The White House also launched a global campaign against the installation of the company’s 5G systems in allied nations, with mixed success.
Ren continued to deny such charges and to oppose Washington’s moves, which have so far failed to slow his company’s commercial advance. Its revenue for the first half of 2020, $65 billion, was up by 13.1 percent over the previous year.
From tariffs on Chinese products and that recent TikTok ban to slurs about the “kung flu” as the Covid-19 pandemic swept America, President Trump and his team have been expressing their mounting frustration over China and ramping up attacks on an inexorably rising power on the global stage. Whether they know it or not, the American century is over, which doesn’t mean that nothing can be done to improve the US position in the years to come.
Setting aside Washington’s belief in the inherent superiority of America, a future administration could stop hurling insults or trying to ban enviably successful Chinese tech firms and instead emulate the Chinese example by formulating and implementing a well-planned, long-term high-tech strategy. But as the Covid-19 pandemic has made abundantly clear, the very idea of planning is not a concept available to the “very stable genius” presently in the White House.


thenation--2020-08-19--Dissenting Delegates Send a Medicare for All Message to Joe Biden

On the second night of a Democratic National Convention where party leaders have gone out of their way to foster an image of unity , Democrats nominated Joe Biden for the presidency and then he moderated a discussion about expanding access to health care .
But a substantial number of dissenting Democratic delegates—including many rising stars from the party ’ s progressive wing—urged him to make a stronger stand on the issue .
The delegates , some of whom were Biden backers , weren ’ t trying to trip up the nominee ’ s run against President Trump and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it by urging the former vice president and the Democratic Party he now leads to meet the moral and the practical demands of an urgent moment shaped by the coronavirus pandemic and mass unemployment .
The dissenting Democrats sent their message to Biden by voting “ no ” on a party platform that fails to make a clear commitment to developing and instituting a single-payer “ Medicare For All ” health care system .
They did not have the critical mass to block the platform .
But that did not prevent them from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the bolder approach that it is supported by 69 percent of all Americans and 88 percent of Democrats .
“ I can ’ t in good conscience support a platform without Medicare for All , ” explained Representative Ro Khanna , a leading progressive in the House who serves as a cochair of the California delegation to the convention .
“ In this pandemic , millions have lost their jobs and their health coverage .
Now is the moment to say health care shouldn ’ t be dependent on your employment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Before the convention , more than 700 delegates signed a petition—circulated by Progressive Democrats of America , RootsAction.org , and other groups—that featured a “ pledge to vote against any platform that does not include a plank supporting universal , single-payer Medicare for All.
” In the days running up to Tuesday night ’ s presidential nomination roll-call vote and presentation of the platform , a number of delegates to this year ’ s virtual convention tweeted images of ballots with their “ no ” votes .
Many attached messages signaling their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Democrats believe that health care is a right , not a privilege , and our health care system should put people before profits ” but that only offers a public option .
Most of the “ no ” votes on the platform came from Sanders backers like Cori Bush , who just made national headlines after beating veteran Representative Lacy Clay in a Missouri primary .
“ I ’ m proud to have voted for @ BernieSanders , but I had to vote against the platform , ” tweeted Bush , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I can not support a platform that does not include # MedicareForAll , which would save lives .
Tens of thousands of lives .
Literally.
” Sanders has endorsed Biden .
Yet , on Tuesday night , before the roll call of the states was conducted , the senator ’ s name was placed in nomination by former United Auto Workers President Bob King , who told the country , “ Bernie believes health care is a human right , and should not be contingent on a job.
” That nomination was seconded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guaranteed health care as part of a one-minute statement that outlined a full progressive agenda : Good evening , bienvenidos , and thank you to everyone here today endeavoring towards a better , more just future for our country and our world .
In fidelity and gratitude to a mass people ’ s movement working to establish 21st century social , economic , and human rights , including guaranteed health care , higher education , living wages , and labor rights for all people in the United States ; a movement striving to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injustice , colonization , misogyny , and homophobia , and to propose and build reimagined systems of immigration and foreign policy that turn away from the violence and xenophobia of our past ; a movement that realizes the unsustainable brutality of an economy that rewards explosive inequalities of wealth for the few at the expense of long-term stability for the many , and who organized an historic , grassroots campaign to reclaim our democracy .
In a time when millions of people in the United States are looking for deep systemic solutions to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and lack of health care , and espíritu del pueblo and out of a love for all people , I hereby second the nomination of Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont for president of the United States of America .
Biden , who sought the party ’ s nomination without success in 1988 and 2008 , won it with ease Tuesday—securing 3,558 delegate votes to 1,151 for Sanders .
But even some of his own delegates were signaling that he needs a bolder platform .
“ I am Biden delegate , ” announced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But , he added , “ I couldn ’ t vote for platform that didn ’ t support Medicare for All when 27 million have lost job based health insurance in crisis.
” Support for Medicare For All , said Fort , is a “ moral imperative .
”

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
On the second night of a Democratic National Convention where party leaders have gone out of their way to foster an image of unity, Democrats nominated Joe Biden for the presidency and then he moderated a discussion about expanding access to health care.
But a substantial number of dissenting Democratic delegates—including many rising stars from the party’s progressive wing—urged him to make a stronger stand on the issue. The delegates, some of whom were Biden backers, weren’t trying to trip up the nominee’s run against President Trump and the Republicans. They were trying to strengthen it by urging the former vice president and the Democratic Party he now leads to meet the moral and the practical demands of an urgent moment shaped by the coronavirus pandemic and mass unemployment.
The dissenting Democrats sent their message to Biden by voting “no” on a party platform that fails to make a clear commitment to developing and instituting a single-payer “Medicare for All” health care system. They did not have the critical mass to block the platform. But that did not prevent them from making morally sound and politically practical arguments for the bolder approach that it is supported by 69 percent of all Americans and 88 percent of Democrats.
“I can’t in good conscience support a platform without Medicare for All,” explained Representative Ro Khanna, a leading progressive in the House who serves as a cochair of the California delegation to the convention. “In this pandemic, millions have lost their jobs and their health coverage. Now is the moment to say health care shouldn’t be dependent on your employment. Health care should be a universal right.”
Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan said:
Before the convention, more than 700 delegates signed a petition—circulated by Progressive Democrats of America, RootsAction.org, and other groups—that featured a “pledge to vote against any platform that does not include a plank supporting universal, single-payer Medicare for All.” In the days running up to Tuesday night’s presidential nomination roll-call vote and presentation of the platform, a number of delegates to this year’s virtual convention tweeted images of ballots with their “no” votes. Many attached messages signaling their frustration with a platform that says, “Democrats believe that health care is a right, not a privilege, and our health care system should put people before profits” but that only offers a public option. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
Most of the “no” votes on the platform came from Sanders backers like Cori Bush, who just made national headlines after beating veteran Representative Lacy Clay in a Missouri primary. “ I’m proud to have voted for @BernieSanders, but I had to vote against the platform,” tweeted Bush. “My people are dying [and] I cannot support a platform that does not include #MedicareForAll, which would save lives. Tens of thousands of lives. Literally.”
Sanders has endorsed Biden. Yet, on Tuesday night, before the roll call of the states was conducted, the senator’s name was placed in nomination by former United Auto Workers President Bob King, who told the country, “Bernie believes health care is a human right, and should not be contingent on a job.” That nomination was seconded by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who referenced guaranteed health care as part of a 95-second statement that outlined a full progressive agenda:
Good evening, bienvenidos, and thank you to everyone here today endeavoring towards a better, more just future for our country and our world. In fidelity and gratitude to a mass people’s movement working to establish 21st century social, economic, and human rights, including guaranteed health care, higher education, living wages, and labor rights for all people in the United States; a movement striving to recognize and repair the wounds of racial injustice, colonization, misogyny, and homophobia, and to propose and build reimagined systems of immigration and foreign policy that turn away from the violence and xenophobia of our past; a movement that realizes the unsustainable brutality of an economy that rewards explosive inequalities of wealth for the few at the expense of long-term stability for the many, and who organized an historic, grassroots campaign to reclaim our democracy. In a time when millions of people in the United States are looking for deep systemic solutions to our crises of mass evictions, unemployment, and lack of health care, and espíritu del pueblo and out of a love for all people, I hereby second the nomination of Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont for president of the United States of America.
Biden, who sought the party’s nomination without success in 1988 and 2008, won it with ease Tuesday—securing 3,558 delegate votes to 1,151 for Sanders.
But even some of his own delegates were signaling that he needs a bolder platform.
“I am Biden delegate,” announced former Georgia state senator Vincent Fort. But, he added, “ I couldn’t vote for platform that didn’t support Medicare for All when 27 million have lost job based health insurance in crisis.” Support for Medicare for All, said Fort, is a “moral imperative.”


thenation--2020-08-19--During the Conventions, the Media Needs to Be Treating Climate Like the Emergency It Is

This story is being co-published by The Guardian , The Nation , and Columbia Journalism Review as part of Covering Climate Now , a global collaboration of more than 400 news outlets committed to transforming news coverage of the defining story of our time .
It ’ s rare to hear the term “ climate emergency ” in media and political discourse in the United States , even though that is the term thousands of scientists say most accurately describes the situation facing humanity .
More than 13,000 scientists have now signed the “ World Scientists ’ Warning of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affirming that scientists have “ a moral obligation…to ‘ tell it like it is , ’ ” before enumerating all the many “ alarming trends [ that make ] it urgently necessary to act.
” With the Democratic and the Republican conventions unfolding this week and next , it ’ s high time for news coverage to catch up with science and make the “ climate emergency ” a leading topic in the national political conversation .
To be sure , climate change has gotten much more attention in 2020 than in previous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democratic convention featured several overtures toward climate action .
But by and large , climate is still treated as just another issue .
That ’ s partly because most candidates still don ’ t say that we face a climate emergency , though Joe Biden comes closer than any major party nominee in history .
But it ’ s also because many news outlets still seem not to recognize climate change as different than the other political subjects they cover .
This one has a strict , rapidly closing time limit : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the climate emergency accelerates beyond salvaging .
That ’ s why scientists deliberately choose the words “ climate emergency.
” Like in science , language matters profoundly in politics .
It ’ s one thing for a politician—and for a news story—to say that climate change is an important “ issue ” or “ problem.
” “ Issues ” and “ problems , ” however worthy , are a dime a dozen on the campaign trail , as is news coverage thereof .
It is something else to say that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency .
An emergency , by definition , demands immediate action .
An emergency is not merely one in a long list of worthy concerns ; it is a supreme priority that allows no time for delay , half-measures , or distractions by less urgent matters .
Will Climate Break Through in Big Media ’ s Elections Coverage ?
The Climate Emergency Won ’ t Wait for the Press to Play Catch-up Again More in this series A few journalists do use the term “ climate emergency.
” Al Roker , the weatherman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is one .
Bill Weir , the climate correspondent at CNN , is another .
The Guardian makes a regular practice , after revising its style guide last year , of preferring “ climate emergency ” or “ climate crisis ” to the more anodyne terms “ climate change ” and “ global warming.
” Most newsrooms , though , especially in the United States , have avoided the “ emergency ” framing , regarding it as activist .
It ’ s true that many activists use the term .
So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national , regional , and local government bodies , including the parliaments of the United Kingdom , France , Portugal , Canada , and Argentina .
But the nervousness in newsrooms misses the point : When political actors use this term , they are doing so in accordance with climate science—the same science that should be guiding news judgments .
The political conventions this week and next offer an opportunity for newsrooms to treat the climate emergency with the urgency that science demands .
No country is more important to defusing the emergency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the US the world ’ s largest economy and historically its biggest climate polluter , but it has also been the greatest obstacle to climate progress , especially during the Trump administration .
Yet Trump has faced relatively little media criticism of his climate record .
It seems taken as a given that Trump opposes climate science , which he has dismissed as “ a hoax , ” so much so that news coverage doesn ’ t even bother to call him out on it anymore .
The result is journalistically indefensible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on arguably the most important challenge of our time .
Biden also deserves attention on this front .
Without question , Biden ’ s words and proposed policies are immeasurably better aligned with the science than Trump ’ s .
The former vice president has said that “ there is no more urgent crisis facing this nation and the world than the threat posed by climate change.
” His climate plan endorses a Green New Deal , in all but name , promising $ 2 trillion in spending to achieve a zero-carbon electricity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 40 percent of federal climate spending for “ communities of color and low income communities [ that ] have faced disproportionate harm.
” And the Biden campaign ’ s social media posts have occasionally used the term “ climate emergency.
” The candidate himself , however , seems not to have used those words .
Does that reflect caution about not looking more extreme than he deems prudent ?
Or does it signal that Biden takes climate change seriously but does not regard it as an emergency ?
Perhaps Biden will clarify this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In any case , between now and Election Day , journalists must make clear to voters what science says : We face a climate emergency , and only immediate , far-reaching action can preserve a livable future .
Journalists should ask candidates in both parties and at all levels of government what they plan to do about this emergency .
Of course , it is not journalists ’ role to tell people how to vote , but it is our responsibility to help them understand what is at stake so they can decide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot box .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
This story is being co-published by The Guardian, The Nation, and Columbia Journalism Review as part of Covering Climate Now, a global collaboration of more than 400 news outlets committed to transforming news coverage of the defining story of our time.
It’s rare to hear the term “climate emergency” in media and political discourse in the United States, even though that is the term thousands of scientists say most accurately describes the situation facing humanity. More than 13,000 scientists have now signed the “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency,” which begins by affirming that scientists have “a moral obligation…to ‘tell it like it is,’” before enumerating all the many “alarming trends [that make] it urgently necessary to act.”
With the Democratic and the Republican conventions unfolding this week and next, it’s high time for news coverage to catch up with science and make the “climate emergency” a leading topic in the national political conversation. To be sure, climate change has gotten much more attention in 2020 than in previous campaigns; and the first night of the Democratic convention featured several overtures toward climate action. But by and large, climate is still treated as just another issue. That’s partly because most candidates still don’t say that we face a climate emergency, though Joe Biden comes closer than any major party nominee in history. But it’s also because many news outlets still seem not to recognize climate change as different than the other political subjects they cover. This one has a strict, rapidly closing time limit: Wait too long to take aggressive action, and the climate emergency accelerates beyond salvaging.
That’s why scientists deliberately choose the words “climate emergency.” Like in science, language matters profoundly in politics. It’s one thing for a politician—and for a news story—to say that climate change is an important “issue” or “problem.” “Issues” and “problems,” however worthy, are a dime a dozen on the campaign trail, as is news coverage thereof. It is something else to say that a problem rises to the level of an emergency. An emergency, by definition, demands immediate action. An emergency is not merely one in a long list of worthy concerns; it is a supreme priority that allows no time for delay, half-measures, or distractions by less urgent matters. Covering Climate Now How to Stop the Spread of Climate Disinformation Erika Seiber and Michael Khoo A Soundtrack for the Climate Emergency Mark Hertsgaard Can Gen Z Save the Midterms for Democrats? Mark Hertsgaard
A few journalists do use the term “climate emergency.” Al Roker, the weatherman and chief climate correspondent at NBC News, is one. Bill Weir, the climate correspondent at CNN, is another. The Guardian makes a regular practice, after revising its style guide last year, of preferring “climate emergency” or “climate crisis” to the more anodyne terms “climate change” and “global warming.” Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life A Grim Chronicle of Trump’s Corrupt Public Life Chris Lehmann
Most newsrooms, though, especially in the United States, have avoided the “emergency” framing, regarding it as activist. It’s true that many activists use the term. So, for that matter, have hundreds of national, regional, and local government bodies, including the parliaments of the United Kingdom, France, Portugal, Canada, and Argentina. But the nervousness in newsrooms misses the point: When political actors use this term, they are doing so in accordance with climate science—the same science that should be guiding news judgments.
The political conventions this week and next offer an opportunity for newsrooms to treat the climate emergency with the urgency that science demands. No country is more important to defusing the emergency than the United States. Not only is the US the world’s largest economy and historically its biggest climate polluter, but it has also been the greatest obstacle to climate progress, especially during the Trump administration. Yet Trump has faced relatively little media criticism of his climate record. It seems taken as a given that Trump opposes climate science, which he has dismissed as “a hoax,” so much so that news coverage doesn’t even bother to call him out on it anymore. The result is journalistically indefensible: It gives the president a pass on arguably the most important challenge of our time.
Biden also deserves attention on this front. Without question, Biden’s words and proposed policies are immeasurably better aligned with the science than Trump’s. The former vice president has said that “there is no more urgent crisis facing this nation and the world than the threat posed by climate change.” His climate plan endorses a Green New Deal, in all but name, promising $2 trillion in spending to achieve a zero-carbon electricity sector by 2035, while also earmarking 40 percent of federal climate spending for “communities of color and low income communities [that] have faced disproportionate harm.” And the Biden campaign’s social media posts have occasionally used the term “climate emergency.” The candidate himself, however, seems not to have used those words. Does that reflect caution about not looking more extreme than he deems prudent? Or does it signal that Biden takes climate change seriously but does not regard it as an emergency?
Perhaps Biden will clarify this in his convention speech Thursday night. In any case, between now and Election Day, journalists must make clear to voters what science says: We face a climate emergency, and only immediate, far-reaching action can preserve a livable future. Journalists should ask candidates in both parties and at all levels of government what they plan to do about this emergency. Of course, it is not journalists’ role to tell people how to vote, but it is our responsibility to help them understand what is at stake so they can decide what to do about it in the ballot box.