The public says to prioritize the China threat. Will the expert class listen?

A new survey from the Pew Research Center reveals that the public increasingly views China as the most pressing foreign policy concern. According to the survey of 3,600 adults in early April, 49% of Americans now hold that “limiting the power and influence of China” should be a top priority in U.S. long-range foreign policy, which is up from 32% in 2018. Meanwhile, only 23% and 22% believe the same about “supporting Ukraine” and “supporting Israel,” respectively. 

However, U.S. foreign policy continues to prioritize security in Europe and the Middle East over safeguarding our interests in Asia, which is the world’s most consequential economic region and home to America’s most potent geopolitical foe. The $95 billion aid package signed into law by President Joe Biden last week sent $61 billion to Ukraine, which brings the total U.S. commitment to a staggering $175 billion since Russia invaded in early 2022. The bill also granted $15 billion in military aid for Israel and $9 billion for humanitarian aid in Gaza while allocating a relatively paltry $8 billion to counter China’s dizzying military buildup, which, according to our own military intelligence, will prepare it for a conflict with the U.S. by 2027. 

This disconnect between voter sentiment and expert-class behavior on foreign policy demands increased scrutiny, if only because the wisdom of the crowd is self-evident in this instance. Indeed, a Chinese takeover of Taiwan would be far more detrimental to America’s immediate and long-term interests than a setback in Europe or the Middle East — or even both. And so, efforts to repel such an action must be appropriately prioritized and funded. 

To be certain, Asia is the world’s fastest-growing economic region, and it isn’t close. The Asian share of global GDP is at 54%, far greater than that of Europe and North America, which stands at 33% combined. Current projections see this chasm widening in the coming decade. 

Nestled in the region’s most crucial geostrategic location, Taiwan is a hub of international trade and a major player in the global economy due to its role in the communication technology industry — it produces more than 90% of the world’s advanced semiconductors. As such, many believe that a war in the Taiwan Strait would trigger a global economic depression and reduce global economic output by trillions. Bloomberg Economics recently estimated that a war in Taiwan would cost the global economy $10 trillion. 

In addition, a Chinese takeover of Taiwan would greatly diminish America’s military capabilities in the region. Taiwan serves as a geostrategic anchor for a network of regional democracies allied with the U.S., including Japan and Korea. A Chinese victory would result in a loss of confidence in the U.S., which would either trigger a regional arms race or cause these allies to cut a deal with the region’s new dominant power.

Put simply, losing Taiwan means losing Asia, and losing Asia means losing the future. 

Stalwart pro-Ukraine voices in government and media are fond of warning of a domino effect in Europe should Kyiv fall. But given the limitations in the Russian economy (it is seven times smaller than China’s) the threat it poses on a global scale is limited. The cause of Israel is more understandable from both a geopolitical and emotional vantage. Israel is a historic and key global ally. But its survival is not as crucial to the American-led global order as Taiwan’s. It’s a cold reality, but a reality nonetheless.

The Pew study reveals that the public grasps this, but our foreign policy expert class does not. This disconnect has numerous causes. For one, it is more likely for a random selection of anonymous Americans to consider the nation’s best interests than a politician or bureaucrat who is concerned with pleasing the right people in pursuit of individual advancement. The public as a collective is not concerned with securing funding or pleasing powerful superiors. The Ukraine aid, in particular, makes more sense as a decision made by individual operators working in self-interest than as a collective body working to secure the best outcome for the nation. 

Furthermore, the foreign policy expert class tends to spend more time dealing in abstractions than ordinary Americans. The Iraq War, for instance, could have only ever been devised by people totally disconnected from the practical consequences of invading a distant country. The utopian idea that a democratic system of government could be installed by force and, worse, that it would bring about a “new American century,” is impressively imbecilic. Indeed, it’s such a dumb idea that you need a Ph.D. in international relations from an Ivy League university to understand it.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“Under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent,” James Surowiecki writes in his celebrated 2004 book The Wisdom of Crowds, which made the counterintuitive argument that groups often make more accurate and reliable decisions than individual experts. In the case of our foreign policy prioritization, this is certainly true. The globe has been on fire for the better part of the century, and American leadership, particularly in the Biden era, inspires little confidence.

Perhaps our leaders should begin to listen to the people. They, at least, appear to have some sense.

Peter Laffin is a contributor at the Washington Examiner. His work has also appeared in RealClearPolitics, the Catholic Thing, and the National Catholic Register.