When it comes to making
decisions that can affect America domestically and internationally, there was a
before-Kissinger era, and then came a new era that was ushered right after him.
Before Henry Kissinger was
chosen by Richard Nixon to be his National Security Adviser (later Secretary of
State,) people that aspired to serve in a high government position, joined the
civil service and worked their way up the ladder till they got appointed to the
position they coveted.
Whether Henry Kissinger
planned it or not, what he did inspired the head-hunting group appointed by
Richard Nixon –– to recommend names who would fill key positions in his
government –– to notice Kissinger, the academic, and recommended him for a high
position. What Kissinger had done to merit the honor, was write a book on
national security, and filled it with new ideas that dazzled all those who read
it.
Ever since that time,
ambitious academics and later, wannabes of other occupations, have used their
profession as a springboard to bypass the civil service and propel themselves
into an appointed government position. They came from Wall Street and the Labor
movement, from entertainment and the media; and they came from the ranks of the
veterans who served in tours of duty but never saw combat, as well as those who
came from the ranks that served, that saw combat and were physically disabled
in some way.
The idea of lobbying for a
prestigious government position without having to stand in the line of the
civil servants and inch one's way to the coveted position –– has caught on in
such a big way in America, the whole country seems to have adopted the game as
a national pastime. From the humble host of a Fox News show to the proud holder
of a Goldman Sachs office, you see them spend their days lobbying for a
government position by displaying solid knowledge in a given subject, and a
high disposition to be loyal to the one who would appoint them.
While this is ongoing, a new wave
of the movement is shaping on the horizon, promising to hit the shore with
great force at some point in the future. You'll get a sense of that when you
read the article that was written by an editorial intern at National Review. He
is Dmitri Solzhenitsyn who authored an article under the title: “In Pushing
Back against China, U.S. Finds Few Allies,” and the subtitle: “Too many
freedom-loving nations fear economic retaliation.” The article was published on
July 31, 2020 in National Review Online.
Unlike the war mongering hawks
that outdo each other by taking evermore extreme positions that define the
potential enemies of America as evil, and recommending hard line policies that
can lead to war –– but only as a last resort, of course –– Dmitri Solzhenitsyn
is playing his cards to impress, not the current administration, but the next
one of whichever stripes it will turn out to be. Solzhenitsyn is in fact
presenting himself as the ultimate diplomat that can serve America's interests
by attracting friends and allies to its side.
To demonstrate that he is
nobody's fool, and certainly not china's, which seems to charm everyone around
the globe, Solzhenitsyn began the article by drawing a list of China's
misdeeds, and called them evil. With this, he sort-of promised not to
equivocate or be wishy-washy when it comes to recommending how America should
deal with China. This done, he unveiled the premise upon which rests his point
of view. It is that China has become an economic colossus, he says, and everyone
that is as small as Croatia or as big as Germany, fears stirring up the wrath
of the Chinese Communist Party, lest it be punished by the colossus.
With this, Dmitri Solzhenitsyn
gave himself a fine line on which to walk and bring it together for America
without losing friends or allies, but also without kowtowing to the communist
party of China. In case you missed it, this approach happens to be what high
diplomacy is made of. And this is how Dmitri Solzhenitsyn wants to be thought
of and treated. Henry Kissinger, here comes the one who will fill your shoes!
Given all this, how does
Dmitri Solzhenitsyn recommend that America handle the current situation or
rather, how does he say he would handle the situation were he appointed
Secretary of State? Well, because the man has proven to be a consummate
diplomat, we look not for a direct answer to the question, but for the way he
describes the behavior of the other players. Here is what we find:
“One imagines Boris Johnson
putting China in a timeout for bad behavior but giving it a pat on the head and
a cookie to munch on. To be sure, there is an occasional discontinuity between
the trump administration's official policy and the president's rhetoric. Within
the United States, there is not a unanimous consensus that China constitutes a
major threat. Senator Dianne Feinstein had some flattering things to say about
China as she remarked that we hold China as a potential trading partner, a
country that has pulled tens of millions of people out of poverty, and a country
growing into a respectable nation. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi spoke of
an urgently needed response to the Chinese government's passage of its national
security law, which threatens to end the one country, two systems, promised
years ago”.