As a junior congresswoman, she walked right into Tiananmen Square and held up a banner that memorialized those that died. Right in front of the Beijing police! She's never stopped poking at China. The fact that she keeps getting re-elected, over and over again, is pretty good proof that she has indeed been elected to engage in foreign policy ;)
I agree that her history of activity really does play a part in being re-elected.
I find the parent comment a bit shocking. It seems unreasonable to claim an elected U.S. representative is somehow not allowed to engage in foreign policy discourse by visiting a country or by suggesting that they aren’t representing their constituent’s views because they do political work outside of the (U.S.) country?
Shall we hazard a guess about unelected Americans? Are those people allowed to exercise their right to freedom of movement and freedom of speech? Obviously yes and yes, but partisan polarization makes all of these norms, rights even, a point of contention.
The Department of State is not the only group of American bureaucrats who are allowed to travel and engage in public actions that are considered political. America isn’t a dictatorship where only specific party members are allowed to engage in foreign policy discussions. When any American is threatened by members of an actual dictatorship (of the proletariat, literally), it might be worth considering that these issues transcend party politics.
The parent comment strongly implies that there isn’t a long history of elected American officials visiting other countries, often with controversial media coverage and/or overt political threats from less than liberal societies. That history also extends to normal Americans speaking in foreign parliaments and speaking in public squares. It is a good thing that everyone has these rights, even if everything said isn’t always good.
With that said, Pelosi might be provoking world war three, but the reason to argue against her actions isn’t because she doesn’t have the right to travel or speak or engage in politics abroad.
As a side note: Taiwan probably should be defended by people who support democracy, though I understand this might not be seen as defense but as unnecessary provocation.
Related though and on display in this thread is a kind of cynicism against America doing positive political actions abroad. This is part of a larger trend perceived from inside and certainly outside of America about some Americans: the light of liberty is going out in America, and most of the world has noticed. It isn’t particularly partisan and has really accelerated since 9/11 under both parties in different ways. It is really sad. America should be a light of liberty in the world, we should bring hope to democracies under threat from illiberal societies. I understand that this is now controversial in America in some political circles and it is really terrible. As polarization increases, all sides will find friends in exile or worse - peaceful resolution requires political discourse regardless of geographical location.
Put another way: Ensure your political “enemies” have basic rights or you too might find that you are without rights, if and likely when, other people run the show…
It's a bit silly to frame a Congressperson visiting Taiwan as merely "visiting a country" given the known sensitivity and the near military standoff over its political status. She has more responsibility than that as a representative of the U.S. She should not be willfully undermining U.S. foreign policy for any reason outside of the legal mechanisms available as a member of Congress. The fact that there was no real purpose to the visit aside from political grandstanding just makes it so much worse.
Do you deny she has the right to do it? Or do I misunderstand your position?
We both probably agree it’s politically risky, perhaps even stupid. I understood your original comment to be a denial of her right to freely travel there. From my perspective she has the right to do it. Do you disagree?
Additionally I don’t believe you have shown that she is undermining U.S. policy, merely that she disagrees with the executive. Why is that a problem? We have a separation of powers and she is part of the legislative body, not the executive. By design these branches can and should disagree when there is disagreement. This is a basic check and balance issue. By the way, Congress has the exclusive power to declare war and controls the power of the purse as well. So if anything is a bit silly, it’s a bit silly to pretend that she isn’t allowed to see the situation on the ground before discussing and perhaps even voting on going or not going to war. She is doing this legally and entirely within her authorities. She is not in the hierarchy of the State Department, and I think it is clear that she has voting constituents in Taiwan that are overseas voters. I know several California voters who live there and she is their duly elected representative. Your position appears to be simply suggesting that the separation of powers doesn’t exist and that she is out of line. I encourage you to cite the line you believe she has crossed.
Party affiliation doesn’t mean iron clad agreement. Dissent against the U.S. President’s policy is a right of all Americans. If it’s a problem in her role, censure her and sanction her in the U.S. House of Representatives. This won’t happen but I do encourage you to work for it politically if you disagree with my analysis. My understanding is that Biden seems to personally agree with her about supporting Taiwan. I don’t know but it seems reasonable to suspect he may even privately be happy she can do what he can’t. It’s too bad American policy with regard to supporting democracy abroad is only widely supported when it’s an imperial, illegal invasion. Here is a chance to do it peacefully and to ignore the Saber rattling of the Chinese dictatorship. I understand some people are too afraid to do this now, or they don’t care about people outside of America. As someone with (American) friends in Taiwan, that isn’t my position. As someone proud of the good things about American democracy, defending and supporting nascent democracy around the world is a good thing. I understand this is going out of fashion. As someone who has lived in and traveled frequently to less than free societies, I implore others to not give up the support for democracy, especially when it is peaceful political discourse under violent threats from illiberal bullies.
>Do you deny she has the right to do it? Or do I misunderstand your position?
I'm getting thoroughly fed up with analyses of geopolitics that begin and end with talks of rights and justifications. It's just the wrong framework to analyze international relations if your goal is to predict behavior at the scale of nation-states and maximize ones own interests. Of course she has a legal right to travel to Taiwan as a US citizen. The question is whether in doing so she is flouting her responsibility as a representative of the US to not undermine US foreign policy. It seems plainly obvious to me that she is and it carries the potential to damage US interests.
>Additionally I don’t believe you have shown that she is undermining U.S. policy, merely that she disagrees with the executive.
It is US policy to maintain a stalemate over encroachment on Taiwan sovereignty. This policy is maintained by careful adherence to time-tested conventions and behavioral constraints as well as calculated actions to maintain the stability of this equilibrium. As a representative of the US government, her actions abroad can and will be interpreted as a reflection of US policy, therefore she should be bound to not interfere with explicit US policy, except through legislative actions available to her. Willfully undermining US's strategy (of an equilibrium with China over Taiwan) by unilateral action is treasonous (for lack of a better word). You said it yourself, her actions could plausibly kick off world war three.
The fact that people are cheering her on is absolutely insane to me. Signalling has completely overwhelmed our collective ability to think rationally on complicated issues, to the detriment of the world. If WW3 does happen, I expect social media will play a non-trivial role in bringing it about.
> I'm getting thoroughly fed up with analyses of geopolitics that begin and end with talks of rights and justifications.
No doubt. It’s a challenging frame for a discourse. Part of the challenge might be related to the fact that it sometimes completely dismantles other arguments that are willing to ignore human rights as enshrined in the U.S. constitution? If we don’t live up to those goals and indeed if they aren’t shared goals, we might need to rethink the entire American government. Personally, those are still very important goals for me and I am glad to see that elected officials try to use soft power to spread idealistic, but basic human rights. The right to self determination is important, as is the right to vote (e.g.: without party membership such as in a one party state).
You’re using your free speech rights on this social media website to argue that someone who is an elected representative shouldn’t exercise her rights. This is perplexing but also understandable.
> It's just the wrong framework to analyze international relations if your goal is to predict behavior at the scale of nation-states and maximize ones own interests.
My sense is that we need more than one framework, I also think game theory and expected value analysis is also probably useful here.
However I don’t think we agree about the notion of self interest. The world is slipping, perhaps running, into authoritarian rule in several areas. If we do not hold the line, and in fact try to expand it peacefully through, we will find it shrinks for us as well. Probably in the short term, the damage to the economy if Taiwan was unavailable for semiconductor manufacturing would probably seriously harm us in an economically measurable manner.
In this way, human rights, the economy, and game theory all seem like reasonable frames for discourse - the balance of the results is then a political question. That political question is best answered with democracy. It’s not perfect, it seems unclear what is better though.
> Of course she has a legal right to travel to Taiwan as a US citizen.
Thanks for conceding that as it was unclear - when you said “Nancy Pelosi wasn't elected to engage in foreign policy” I was unsure. That’s the reason several persons I know voted for her (I know; the plural of anecdote isn’t data…), I didn’t but hey, how can we evaluate that statement except by a legal or rights based analysis? In terms of power delegated to her, it’s certainly part of the job. If not, there is a specific legal process to impeach her. Personally I think she should probably be impeached for insider trading but that’s also because it looks clearly like corruption, and that really harms American interests in a measured way.
Apologies for being long winded, I don’t have enough time for shorter comments today.
When you said “She should not be doing actions abroad that have implications for U.S. foreign policy.” I think that this sounds like an opinion and an unsupported claim. On what basis can someone do “actions abroad” at all then? All actions by all Americans abroad have “have implications for U.S. foreign policy.” Some have more “implications” than others but it’s not only her right, it’s her job. I disagree with her on many issues and I wish she would be replaced, but how can we objectively measure what you’re claiming here should not be done? It really sounds like isolationism - that she just should not do it and that doing it is somehow beyond her mandate, and it follows that lesser Americans like the rest of us unelected folks should also not do it. That’s a level of isolationism that exceeds even Thoreau in his criticism of the Mexican-American war. Talking abroad as a person in power where it may avert a war seems provocative but the most basic kind of interventional action allowed for such a person.
> The question is whether in doing so she is flouting her responsibility as a representative of the US to not undermine US foreign policy.
That’s a new question and a good one. I’m glad you ask it, thank you for taking the time to engage.
The separation of powers encourages dissent against policy or actions by other coequal branches of government. On what grounds do you think she is flouting a responsibility? Which specific responsibilities is she flouting?
I’m not sure what you mean exactly, so I withhold any judgement. She may be doing that and I am plainly open to that option, there is simply some clarity here that I am missing from the question.
> It seems plainly obvious to me that she is and it carries the potential to damage US interests.
It is not plainly obvious to me. I would like very much to understand your position because I sense some frustration that means I am blind to something important to you. It seems like pandering to her base in some ways, but it also seems like one of the better American interventions in the last twenty years. No weapons, very small fiscal expense, positive PR for American values, potentially heading off a similar conflict to Ukraine before it starts, and perhaps other positive things like cheaper semiconductor production for Americans not made in mainland China? I presume someone did some game theory analysis and concluded that the Chinese make a lot of threats they don’t back up ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_final_warning ), and by conceding to a bully, the bully is empowered.
> It is US policy to maintain a stalemate over encroachment on Taiwan sovereignty.
In this, I think we agree - this seems unobjectionable but I admit I am not a foreign policy expert by training, only by working abroad for many years, including with relevant parties here.
> This policy is maintained by careful adherence to time-tested conventions and behavioral constraints as well as calculated actions to maintain the stability of this equilibrium.
What if they ran the numbers and decided they needed her to do this to maintain that stalemate? By showing that there is dissent internally, this may encourage China to try to work with Biden to censure Pelosi, bringing them back to the discussion table at a time (Ukraine war) that they seem to indicate they want to move on Taiwan.
> As a representative of the US government, her actions abroad can and will be interpreted as a reflection of US policy,
Maybe. It’s clear she dissents from Biden’s official policy as I understand it. She can also be interpreted as a reflection of the values of the (capitalist) democratic system which allows for dissent from the highest executive leadership.
>therefore she should be bound to not interfere with explicit US policy, except through legislative actions available to her.
Ah that’s a policy suggestion that I can’t agree with unless there is a specific proposal. Do you have one? It might be that I do agree with your view but I already believe there is more than one way to view her actions and the U.S. policy generally.
> Willfully undermining US's strategy (of an equilibrium with China over Taiwan) by unilateral action is treasonous (for lack of a better word).
Calling her actions treasonous when Biden himself agrees personally seems like a stretch. It’s clearly a coordinated motion by the Democrats, not only to win votes at home but also abroad. Russian and Chinese intervention seems much worse than American when we consider her gesture.
Additionally, I don’t think you have shown she is undermining it, especially if U.S. (e.g.: intelligence, diplomats, etc) thinks China may soon take action to break the stalemate. I’m not sure if this is the case but that seems like something that is being discussed. If China is going to break it with violence, it is better to change the norms slowly with diplomacy. It is especially better if the expected value of a war now includes the calculation of kicking off a major conflict with the biggest and best navy in the world, not just a tiny island. As a side note the tiny island did very well in the last hot war and they clearly managed to help create this stalemate. We probably could learn something from them when they ask for our help, it’s probably not something to dismiss.
> You said it yourself, her actions could plausibly kick off world war three.
There is a flip side: inaction presents danger as well. If we are not regularly taking steps to ensure peace, we may also find ourselves in the Third World War. The Cold War over African infrastructure (primarily between U.S. and China) is underway now. Peace requires work, constantly.
> The fact that people are cheering her on is absolutely insane to me.
It seems like you have lost faith in American soft and hard power, and you think China will not only start a hot war, that they might win it? Is that fair? I’m definitely against a war with China but diplomatic action is precisely how I think we avoid it: we tell them the expected value of their actions and put it on display for the entire world to see. If they pull the trigger, America will have the moral upper hand and we clearly have the military superiority. It will probably be a completely stupid and pointless war, and it will wipe out huge number of innocent lives. Pelosi herself will probably escape unharmed.
> Signalling has completely overwhelmed our collective ability to think rationally on complicated issues, to the detriment of the world.
I agree. However we have definitional disagreements.
Diplomatic action is not merely (social media or media) signaling, it is critical for the functioning of the world. This is within her mandate, and it is clearly to counter China’s rumbling about taking Taiwan by force. They’re the little guy and China is the bully. If they take Taiwan, it will damage the American economy immensely, to say nothing of rights or values. The economic impact of a war in Taiwan would be even worse than the direct human cost.
> If WW3 does happen, I expect social media will play a non-trivial role in bringing it about.
Absolutely, the cynicism it brings to the world is harmful. That’s what free speech gets us - I think the trade offs are worth it, in the end free societies will (with constant effort!) triumph over illiberal societies. It will be with a high cost but it is worth the price. I expect to go quickly if nuclear arms are used and I accept this as a risk.
We should dare to risk, we cannot live freely without risk. Live free or die, and all that.
>If they pull the trigger, America will have the moral upper hand and we clearly have the military superiority. It will probably be a completely stupid and pointless war, and it will wipe out huge number of innocent lives. Pelosi herself will probably escape unharmed.
This point really cuts to the heart of the matter. Moral and rights talk, in a manner that treats them as unconditionally overriding principles, is the exclusive domain of the privileged. It takes an uncommon privilege to eschew any consideration of the externalities of your actions; to treat the justificatory quality of rights as total. Those who aren't so privileged know, just as the right-of-way in an intersection won't protect you from an oncoming car, a moral or legal right won't protect you from the negatives of uncritically exercising your presumed rights. But social media has created a potent source of short-term utility from virtue signaling with no consideration of context, the costs of which usually falls on those less privileged than the virtue signaler.
It's like we've collectively forgotten that the world isn't black and white, and that actions have reactions. We just can't avoid considering our actions in a space of possible reactions and then judge the utility of the outcome. That is, if we actually care about helping people and reducing suffering. But those who go around advocating for promoting democracy, or standing up to bullies, or whatever are doing exactly this, dispensing with the complicated task of analyzing the outcome of actions and judging if the presumed benefit is worth the cost. When Pelosi goes to Taiwan to poke China, she can afford to ignore the potential reaction. As you said, she is likely to survive a nuclear war. But there is no virtue here, only self promotion. The real virtue is restraining oneself in these uncritical "moral" performances precisely because the cost tends to be borne by those less privileged. It is easy to say democracy is worth dying for when you're not the one that will be dying.
>It seems like you have lost faith in American soft and hard power, and you think China will not only start a hot war, that they might win it? Is that fair?
I don't know what would count as a "win" in a hot war with China. It's negative-sum. The win is not to engage in it.
>Calling her actions treasonous when Biden himself agrees personally seems like a stretch. It’s clearly a coordinated motion by the Democrats, not only to win votes at home but also abroad. Russian and Chinese intervention seems much worse than American when we consider her gesture.
I don't know that Biden agrees with her. Even if he personally agrees with her, the issue is how her actions undermine US policy that President Biden is executing. But perhaps this is some surreptitious tactic to confound China's ability to predict US responses. In that case, I wouldn't have a problem with Pelosi's action (although I do have a problem with the tactic). But that's not how it looks from where I'm sitting and I can only judge by the information I have.
>The separation of powers encourages dissent against policy or actions by other coequal branches of government. On what grounds do you think she is flouting a responsibility? Which specific responsibilities is she flouting?
The separation of powers isn't akin to a no-holds-barred cage match where the last person standing wins. There are legal structures in place for each branch to influence or constrain the other branches. Operating outside of these constraints to influence US policy is just to declare yourself an enemy of the constitution. Iran-Contra was treasonous precisely because the executive did an end-run around the legal authority of Congress. This is no different.
> Moral and rights talk, in a manner that treats them as unconditionally overriding principles, is the exclusive domain of the privileged.
This claim seems backwards as a general rule. For one easy example: In jail support, prisoners, including political prisoners but also common criminals, often speak of their rights. Often their rights being violated is a problem precisely because they are not privileged and the basic rights, which are the responsibility of the state, are not being upheld. With PREA as an example, the state agrees with this discourse. There is a bottom of the barrel, and when we speak about rights we are really scraping the bottom of that barrel. Rights are important most of all or especially for the least privileged in society because usually those people are directly faced with the organs of the state. The rights based discourse is of course the domain of the literate, but the exercise of those rights is important for everyone which by definition includes the unprivileged. I suppose we could debate which group is larger but that’s the logical fallacy of the majority…
> We just can't avoid considering our actions in a space of possible reactions and then judge the utility of the outcome
I agree. I don’t think there is avoidance here. Pelosi flew on a military aircraft which Biden as Commander in Chief could have stopped. This fact is a giant hint that we don’t have all the information. If she had flown commercial, it would be a different signal. Chinese commentators have noticed this (e.g: https://nitter.net/CarlZha/status/1554720310611812354 ) fact. How do you explain this detail?
Furthermore the logic of conflict you present (as I understand it) seems like a game of tic tac toe rather than chess or go. It certainly it is a standard lower than the decision theory taught at the Rand Corp (ha!) or practiced in Department of State. With what I take from your comments the way to win any conflict with a U.S. following these rules is simply to make a huge threat, and the bully will win, almost always. There is no risk worth nuclear war, so we shall have no freedom of navigation in the “South China Sea” as China regularly says no and makes serious (sounding) threats.
Alternatively we can view their threats as a reaction to basic international law, and we can push back on their threats not on a rights based discourse alone but also an expected value outcome in terms of economic cost. They won’t carry out their threats and indeed they did not start world war three. Your strategy as proposed (and again I admit I may misunderstand) doesn’t seem like a good strategy for many reasons.
> It is easy to say democracy is worth dying for when you're not the one that will be dying.
Sure.
I have been to war zones and risked my own life to be there. I assert that you need not take this risk to hold any position. My implicit question was if you agree in any case. It’s easy and yet you don’t take a position. That’s fair but maybe it would be helpful to say that? I don’t see agreement here so again, the risks here seem too much for you, and as a result there is a simple way to beat your diplomatic strategy every time in game theory simulations.
> The win is not to engage in it.
This is true for a war, on that we agree - though I suspect America will have at least one person standing. A technical win with high costs which is probably fair to dismiss as hardly a win at all.
Still I think you avoid the direct question: what about the need to engaging in peace building where it may risk war and where inaction also risks war?
> But perhaps this is some surreptitious tactic to confound China's ability to predict US responses.
What is the standard of evidence I could meet to demonstrate that this is likely or actually happening? It seems clear (say, a preponderance of evidence but not yet beyond a reasonable doubt) to me based on the use of military aircraft, Biden’s personal statements, the history of empty Chinese threats, and other details published in the popular press.
> But that's not how it looks from where I'm sitting and I can only judge by the information I have.
Thank you for acknowledging that the core problem is that we simply don’t know enough. It’s hard to have a functional democracy when this is true, and yet diplomatic action requires secrecy from the general public (at least for a time, and not forever) in tense moments. If you don’t have confidence in government officials at all, I can see how it would be hard to give them the benefit of the doubt.
> There are legal structures in place for each branch to influence or constrain the other branches.
Which legal structures do you assert that she isn’t free and legally allowed to do this travel? Your goal posts seem to be shifting. We already agreed she has a right, so how can you assert now that she doesn’t, and that it is somehow illegal or against any rule of conduct for members of the House?
> Operating outside of these constraints to influence US policy is just to declare yourself an enemy of the constitution.
I’m not sure that the latter follows the former. You haven’t shown that she is operating outside of any constraints, nor that “influence US policy” is a thing that shouldn’t be done. Again, on what basis do you make that claim? Do you assert that the various democrats and republicans who visited Ukraine should have a political litmus test, to see if they are influencing U.S. policy in some (supposed and implied negative) manner? From my perspective this is a core part of their job.
Iran-Contra was bad but in the end, I don’t think any of the people involved caught treason charges. Did they? I might be wrong here as I am definitely not an expert in Oliver North’s crimes. Was anyone directly involved and convicted of any crime an elected official? If not, I think the comparison doesn’t stand but it does raise a question about the actions of unelected people. Regardless, Arms smuggling is materially different than a visit to meet with political counterparts and constituents.
In summary, we probably agree about a few things here, but we are operating in a vacuum regarding their analysis process and thus we lack information. There are hints that this is happening and I perceive your cynicism to be overpowering your confidence that this is indeed happening.
Your view appears to be that all of this is empty virtual signaling, and I partially agree - but that’s the pandering to her base, many of which can’t engage in the economic or conflict analysis by game theory when reading a news paper. So the rights based discourse is easier as a summary, and it is obviously (to me anyway) not the full analysis leading to her actions. Do you seriously contend that this is merely a P.R. exercise with no analysis and that military transport is simply free for use to do Twitter virtual signaling?
