As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, the animosity between America and China is perhaps at its greatest point since the 1960s. Over the last five years specifically, we’ve seen a dramatic turn in American public opinions, with animosity rising steadily, and rising even before covid blew up. Even with the Russia-Ukraine conflict, China is still perceived as the #1 threat.
There are numerous reasons for this that I could list, some of which are more legitimate than others. Top on the list is politicians on both sides of the aisle who use the “other” to demonize or scapegoat for domestic votes or funding. But legitimate issues linked to unfair trade practices, aggressive foreign policy actions, and relentless corporate espionage by China also look to haunt the relationship for years to come.
Despite this, I believe the two countries are not as dissimilar as some might believe. Both countries are proud of their country’s size and global footprint, perhaps to a fault. Both are proud of their native language, and the majority feel speaking their language is sufficient.
Both countries feel a sense of a special destiny. A subset of U.S. thinkers had believed at one time in manifest destiny (and some still believe this), the U.S. being natural a beacon for certain values such as freedom, democracy, and individual rights. Meanwhile, China views itself as the central country of Asia - note the name China 中国 literally means “central kingdom” - with a 5,000 year history and rightly being the global center of culture and innovation for thousands of years.
Moreover, citizens from both countries regularly rank higher on traits linked to narcissism as measured by overconfidence and risk-taking behavior (Meisel, M. K., Ning, H., Campbell, W. K., & Goodie, A. S. (2016)). Perhaps there just isn’t enough room on this earth for these two overconfident superpowers?
But dig a little deeper into history and we see that America in fact found itself exactly in China’s situation about 120 years ago. A quickly rising power, with growing economic might, and causing a stir amongst Europe imperialist powers.
The situations are so similar, in fact, that one might think President Xi was literally reading from a biography of the U.S. president at that time - Theodore Roosevelt - to guide his policymaking today.
Could Americans gain some perspective on China - and ourselves - by looking back in time? And could we perhaps get some insight into what President Xi’s goals are today?
The U.S. in 1900: A Review
Recall that by 1900, the dominant world powers were the U.K., Germany - Austria, France, and Russia. But America quickly catching up, being firmly in the “Gilded Age,” a time where economic growth had exploded and certain industrialists such as J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller began to amass huge fortunes. Meanwhile, many European nations were declining in power. Revolutions had swept the world through the 19th century as the people from Europe to Africa and Asia turned against corrupt monarchies. Meanwhile, Germany - finally unified as a single country, thanks to Bismarck - was the sole growing power in Europe by the late 1800s, mainly on the back of its rapid industrialization campaign. Japan was also growing rapidly in the East.
America’s foreign policy slant had historically been focused around isolationism. This was laid out clearly in the Monroe Doctrine):
"In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense.”
- President James Monroe, 1823
But by the late 1800s, U.S. isolationism as a policy was fading in popularity. The Spanish Empire, for instance, had been in decline through the 19th century, particularly in Cuba where reports circulated that Spain was rounding up Cuban locals into concentration camps to control revolts. The U.S. had always been wary of European powers encroaching into the Western hemisphere, but reports of these camps stirred anger in the public. U.S. public opinion swayed against Spain further after a U.S. navy ship - the Maine - mysteriously exploded in Havana Bay in early 1898 (it was later proven likely caused by exploding munitions).
The Spanish - American War only lasted for 10 weeks, but it ended up changing U.S. international relations. America won handedly, and the war ceded ownership of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippine islands from Spain to America, while Spain-controlled Cuba became a U.S. protectorate.
McKinley’s opponent and Democrat Party leader William Jennings Bryan was staunchly against keeping the territory, being an opponent of America’s growing imperialist slant. But President McKinley wanted to keep the Philippines to “civilize” the country. He thereby refused to acknowledge the Philippines declaration of independence and instead annexed the country, which ultimately sparked a massive rebellion that took the lives of nearly a million people.
Despite the controversy, the era of American isolationism was over. McKinley was eventually assassinated by anarchist Leon Czolgosz. But the incoming president Theodore Roosevelt still supported McKinley’s belief that the U.S. could and should intervene if and when the affairs involved America’s interests in their hemisphere. He expanded this notion in the Roosevelt Corollary, which explicitly allowed for U.S. military intervention against European powers.
Roosevelt realized going after key foreign assets would be critical for America’s growth. An example of this was the Panama canal. Roosevelt knew a U.S. controlled canal would enable the U.S. Navy to operate both in the Pacific and Atlantic with ease as well as conduct trade between Europe, South America and Asia. Roosevelt thereby agreed to support Panama rebels to revolt against Colombia - which controlled Panama at that time - only if Panama then agreed to a U.S.-controlled canal. A deal was struck, the Panamanians won liberation, and the U.S. built a canal that they controlled for nearly 100 years, enabling it to become a trading powerhouse.
Beyond pushing an aggressive foreign policy, Roosevelt was also highly against corruption. Industrialization at the turn of the century generated huge wealth but put concentrated much of it in the hands of a select few. The meat processing industry was one example, where corporate owners overworked their employees, failed to meet adequate safety measures, and fought unionization, all while plant owners pocketed enormous wealth, graphically illustrated in the popular novel The Jungle. Roosevelt pushed Congress to pass the Meat Inspection Act of 1906 as well as the Pure Food and Drug Act in response to the stark deterioration in food and medicine standards. Roosevelt also aggressively used the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act to regulate other industries and punish corporates engaging in unfair practices, such as the massively big Standard Oil and J.P. Morgan’s Northern Securities.
Despite his popular “irrepressible, belligerent, and enthusiastic” style of power, as noted by one newspaper at the time, his desire to leave a footprint on everything often went too far. Biographer Henry Brands wrote that “even his friends occasionally wondered whether there wasn't any custom or practice too minor for him to try to regulate, update or otherwise improve.” Historian Howard Beale argued “he and his associates came close to seeking war for its own sake … There was something dull and effeminate about peace.” His fascination with biology and its linkages to social Darwinism caused him to view the international sphere as unstable and violent, thereby requiring centralized power and violence to defend.
“Government power should be concentrated in the hands of a very few men, who would be so conspicuous that no citizen could help knowing all about them.”
- Theodore Roosevelt, “Machine Politics in New York City.” The Century. 1886.
Many disliked his imperialist attitude and called him out on it. Like many Americans at that time, industrialist Andrew Carnegie called on him to to turn the Philippines free. But Roosevelt wasn’t having it, calling out Carnegie as having “defective physical courage … unmanly shrinking from pain and effort.”
‘Unrighteous war is a hideous evil; but I am not at all sure that it is worse evil than business unrighteousness.’
- Theordore Roosevelt
In all fairness, Roosevelt was not all about war and aggression. Russia and Japan went to war in 1904 over rival imperial ambitions, and Roosevelt worked to negotiate a peace between the two countries, eventually earning a Nobel Peace Prize for Peace.
In sum, we have a rapidly rising power. A leader with a strong arm against corruption. An aggressive, bold, and at times coercive foreign policy. A believer in centralized power. And a believer in taking bold, strategic action for the country’s long-term success. These were the hallmarks of Theodore Roosevelt, for better or worse. And today, Roosevelt is ranked as one of the best presidents in America’s history by historians.
Today, we see the same traits in China’s leadership. What does this tell us about them? And what does this tell us about us? Are we scared? Are we angry?
In the next piece, we’ll dig deeper into where China is today.
Disclaimer: BubbleCatcher is published as an information service for subscribers, and it includes opinions as to forecasts on the global economy and its impact on securities linked to economic activity. The publishers of BubbleCatcher are not brokers or investment advisers, and they do not provide investment advice or recommendations directed to any particular subscriber or in view of the particular circumstances of any particular person. BubbleCatcher does NOT receive compensation from any of the companies featured in our articles. At various times, the publisher of BubbleCatcher may own, buy or sell the securities discussed for purposes of investment or trading. BubbleCatcher and its publishers, owners, and agents are not liable for any losses or damages, monetary or otherwise, that result from the content of BubbleCatcher. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future performance. The information contained on BubbleCatcher is provided for general informational purposes as a convenience to the subscribers of BubbleCatcher. The materials are not a substitute for obtaining professional advice from a qualified person, firm, or corporation. Consult the appropriate professional advisor for more complete and current information. BubbleCatcher makes no representations or warranties about the accuracy or completeness of the information contained on this website. Any links provided to other server sites are offered as a matter of convenience and in no way are meant to imply that BubbleCatcher endorses, sponsors, promotes, or is affiliated with the owners of or participants in those sites, or endorses any information contained on those sites unless expressly stated.