To engage in a debate is like climbing a flight of stairs. Step by step, you go up and move forward toward a destination. Conversely, to engage in haggling is like hopscotching erratically from no place to nowhere.
When
you listen to two people talk to each other, with each picking the conversation
from where the other left it to advance it further ahead before ceding it back
to the first, you get the sense that you are climbing stairs with them to a
place that both will accept given that they worked mentally to get to it, even
if neither had foreseen it before starting the journey. This is what a debate
is all about.
If
now, you listen to two people talk to each other, with each saying things that
may not follow what he/she said previously, and neither does it relate to what
the other was saying, you get the sense that both are hopscotching on stones
distributed randomly on a flat surface. They may collide once in a while, but
they come upon one another as if talking past each other. This is what haggling
is all about.
When
you read the American paper trails of decades ago, you discover that America’s
journalists and politicians used to engage in civilized debates. But then, you’ll
notice that the country began to gradually shift to the haggling method,
putting a distance between itself and the civilized world. You do research to
find out what went wrong, and before long, discover that the American culture
was contaminated by the Judeo-Yiddish culture from where America’s journalists
and politicians borrowed the primitive haggling, thus managed to suffocate and
nearly kill the civilized debate.
Once
you discover that reality, two mysteries that used to baffle you, immediately
get resolved in your mind. One mystery has to do with the reason why America’s
political elites now deal with each other like primitive savages, except when
it comes to serving Israel, a time when they behave like obedient servants. The
other mystery has to do with the reason why America’s political elites deal
with the rest of the world like primitive savages, except when it comes to
pimping for Israel, a time when they behave like hustlers on steroid. The explanation
for both realities is that the Americans no longer speak English in the
American vernacular. They speak English in the Judeo-Yiddish vernacular.
Two
recent articles demonstrate how difficult it has become for America’s leaders
to form a correct perspective of what they see happen around the world, thus
fail to formulate the correct response, and find themselves losing every
contest to their foreign peers. The result is that America’s causes are never
fulfilled, and the country loses both influence and respect around the world.
One
article came under the title: “How Putin is pushing back against the West,”
written by Nicolas K. Gvosdev, and published on November 15, 2021 in the
National Interest. The other article came under the title: “What to expect from
Joe Biden’s Summit with China,” written by Daniel R. DePetris and published in the
same publication on the same day as the first article.
Nikolas
Gvosdev begins his article by telling how in the past few months, he and other
Americans, viewed the world. They predicted how it will unfold, only to be
proven wrong on every count, just a few months later. Here, in condensed form,
is what Gvosdev wrote:
“At the end of 2020, I
was conferring with colleagues about the trajectory of relations between Russia
and the West. One was that things were about to break our way. Russia was
coping with the collapse of energy prices. Opposition leader would be sent into
obscurity. Belarus would start down the pro-Western course. Ukraine was set to
benefit from new US weapons. Hopes were high that reforms might solidify
Ukraine's entrance into NATO. US sanctions would deal the death blow to the
Nord Stream 2 pipeline, while new sources of energy would further reduce
Russian sales. The Kremlin would have to become much more accommodating of
Washington's preferences. My sense now is that the various crises springing up
in Eastern Europe are meant as warnings that assuming that Russia will accept
whatever state of affairs the Western alliance decrees is a highly risky
endeavor”.
It
is obvious from Gvosdev’s account that at the end of 2020, he and his
colleagues did not confer to have a well-rounded civilized debate about the
state of the world, the way they did things in America decades earlier. That’s
when journalists and politicians used to engage in civilized debates—engagements
that moved up and forward as if climbing a flight of stairs. No, a well-rounded
debate is not what Gvosdev and company had in 2020. Instead, they haggled their
way in-and-out random discussions as if hopscotching from one topic to another like
would the one-dimensional creatures of Flatland.
As
to Daniel DePetris’s article, the following is a condensed version of the
warning that the writer has sent to the politicos in Washington:
“US-China relation has
become so unproductive that the mere semblance of cooperation on a single issue
can get blown out of proportion. The dispute is fed in large part by China’s
transition from a backbencher in the international system to a powerful player
in its own right. The country’s leadership has sought to translate this wealth
into military power. In the past, China was not capable to pursue its
interests forcefully. But this isn’t the case today. US officials need to keep
a cool head and add some desperately needed perspective into the policy debate.
Hyping the threat Beijing poses to US interests will do nothing to help
Washington manage US-China relations. It is primed to worsen the problem and
complicate any prospect of a functional relationship between the two economic
powers”.
The politicos, as well as the other journalists in the land, would do themselves and the country a big favor heeding that warning.