Speaker 1: Really excited about our next guest, Larry Diamond. He's a
Speaker 1: senior fellow with the Hoover Institution, co editor, founding co
Speaker 1: editor of the Journal of Democracy, senior consultant at the
Speaker 1: International Forum for Democratic Studies of the National Endowment for
Speaker 1: Democracy China. Right, we're going to talk about China. His
Speaker 1: research focuses on democratic trends and conditions around the world,
Speaker 1: and he's just been part of producing a big new
Speaker 1: report about the way China is trying to influence the
Speaker 1: West in ways both the savory and unsavory, including the
Speaker 1: United States. Looking forward to this, Larry Diamond joins us. Now, welcome.
Speaker 1: We appreciate you joining us for the podcast. So listen.
Speaker 1: The the current zeitgeist is to hang on every mentioned,
Speaker 1: every whiff of anybody talking to any Russians and act
Speaker 1: as though that is self evidently a betrayal of the
Speaker 1: nation or a dangerous activity and that sort of thing.
Speaker 1: And I'm not downplaying Vladimir putting An plans, but it's
Speaker 1: funny that no such sentiment exists about our many, many
Speaker 1: contacts with China. Well, I think that's beginning to change,
Speaker 1: and uh, we make very clear in this report we've
Speaker 1: just released with the Hoover Institution that we do not
Speaker 1: want to generate or feed a generalized hysteria about China
Speaker 1: or contacts with China, and certainly not about Chinese Americans
Speaker 1: or even Chinese visitors in the United States. But they
Speaker 1: do have an agenda here to penetrate and sway our democracy,
Speaker 1: and we need to wake up to it. And how
Speaker 1: are they going about penetrating our democracy? Well, not as
Speaker 1: deeply and alarmingly as they have in Australian New Zealand,
Speaker 1: where there's ample evidence of them really having uh penetrated
Speaker 1: politics through campaign contributions and enlisting for the work of
Speaker 1: their companies and business people former prime ministers and former ministers.
Speaker 1: But you know, they are moving deeply into universities with
Speaker 1: very uh I think unhealthy conditions and lack of transparency
Speaker 1: in terms of some of the relationships. When they have
Speaker 1: exchanges with think tanks and universities, often they will uh
Speaker 1: eliminate people from the exchange list from the ability to
Speaker 1: participate in a conference if they don't like their politics. Uh.
Speaker 1: They are very selective, increasingly so in the granting of
Speaker 1: visas to journalists and scholars and so on so they
Speaker 1: can send a message that if you criticize China, you'll
Speaker 1: be denied access. Uh. They're getting business people to do
Speaker 1: their bid, American business people to do their bidding and
Speaker 1: appeal for their policy interests with the US government. Uh.
Speaker 1: They are stealing our technology, uh and uh misappropriating intellectual property. Uh.
Speaker 1: They're sending scientists and engineers to work in university and
Speaker 1: other labs in the United States who are affiliated with
Speaker 1: or working for the People's Liberation Army and disguise their
Speaker 1: real identity so it looks like they're just honest scientists.
Speaker 1: And then you wake up and you find, just read
Speaker 1: the newspaper on a daily basis, whether it's quantum computing
Speaker 1: or electric cars or a gene editing or whatever, that
Speaker 1: there's artificial intelligence. They're surging ahead of the United States
Speaker 1: in technologies that will not only determine who leads the
Speaker 1: world economy, but looking over the not very distant horizon,
Speaker 1: who will have military superiority. Well, I appreciate your disclaimer
Speaker 1: at the beginning of our chat about not, you know,
Speaker 1: causing some sort of generalized desteria about the Chinese people,
Speaker 1: but that sounds like serious concern about serious issues. This
Speaker 1: is not ticky tech, you know, trying to gain a
Speaker 1: little bit of advantage. This is serious stuff. I think
Speaker 1: it's very serious stuff. UH, and so do UH. You
Speaker 1: know a significant number of people who have spent their
Speaker 1: lifetime studying China, who love China, uh, and who have
Speaker 1: joined in this working group report that we just released.
Speaker 1: We just need to be what we call in the report,
Speaker 1: constructively vigilant. We need much more information, uh, much more
Speaker 1: due diligence about who we're dealing with on the Chinese side.
Speaker 1: And that's partly a responsibility of universities, think tanks, media, UH,
Speaker 1: state and local governments that are being approached for investments
Speaker 1: or uh for exchange relationships to investigate who they're dealing with.
Speaker 1: But the federal government also needs to give these organizations
Speaker 1: and actors more help and trying to understand and know
Speaker 1: who they're dealing with. We're so used to military and
Speaker 1: economic superiority over everybody, and it's been that way for
Speaker 1: quite a while. UM. The economic stuff is out there
Speaker 1: for everybody to read, you know, the various gauges of
Speaker 1: sizes of economies and that sort of stuff. But how
Speaker 1: about the military stuff. I remember there's a statement out
Speaker 1: of the Pentagon not too long ago that we're approaching
Speaker 1: a time where we we would not be able to
Speaker 1: win a war against China. Is that sound accurate to you? Yes,
Speaker 1: it does. After talking to a number of defense and
Speaker 1: scientific analysts, because I do not present myself as one
Speaker 1: of those. In a technical sense, I think it is
Speaker 1: not a hysterical concern that they're they're raising. I think
Speaker 1: it's well founded. And the reason why that we all
Speaker 1: need to keep in mind is that we're increasingly entering
Speaker 1: in the era of what they call asymmetric warfare. And
Speaker 1: by asymmetric um what is meant is that we may
Speaker 1: have more aircraft carriers, and we may have UH battleships
Speaker 1: destroyers that have more firepower than the Chinese. But if
Speaker 1: the People's Liberation Army can disable our ability to communicate
Speaker 1: with them UH than UH for example, or find other
Speaker 1: ways through long range, highly precise missiles that they're developing
Speaker 1: of actually sinking in American aircraft carrier, than the fact
Speaker 1: that we have more than them and that they have
Speaker 1: more firepower isn't necessarily going to help us to win
Speaker 1: a war. Increasingly, I think the next war will be have.
Speaker 1: If there is God forbid, a major war between major powers,
Speaker 1: it will be heavily driven by information technology. And if
Speaker 1: they have an edge in that, they may have a
Speaker 1: war fighting edge in general. Is it realistic to think that,
Speaker 1: at some point in the future near enough to matter,
Speaker 1: we'll convince China that stealing all of us, say a
Speaker 1: company's uh, technological um information is not an okay way
Speaker 1: to do business. I don't see them giving in on
Speaker 1: that point. Well, uh, that is a very pleasible scenario
Speaker 1: that they won't UH. And if they don't, I think
Speaker 1: we need to respond in a number of robust ways. Look,
Speaker 1: I think anyone can google me and discover that I've
Speaker 1: been extremely critical of President Donald Trump, but on this
Speaker 1: issue of trade with China, and in particular UH, the
Speaker 1: abuse of the trading relationship that is most dramatically evidenced
Speaker 1: by their their theft and misappropriation of our intellectual property.
Speaker 1: I think Trump is right on target. And I can
Speaker 1: tell you during the late summer I spent twenty days
Speaker 1: in Asia, and I was surprised by the number of
Speaker 1: people in India, in Thailand, in Hong Kong, in Taiwan
Speaker 1: who were telling me even people who were you know,
Speaker 1: environmental activists and obviously on the political left in their
Speaker 1: countries that they are very grateful to Donald Trump for
Speaker 1: standing up to China. So I think in the current
Speaker 1: trade negotiations, we need to take a tough line on
Speaker 1: this and uh, if they're not willing to change their practices,
Speaker 1: I think it should have not only significant consequences for trade,
Speaker 1: but for the granting of visas to the people who
Speaker 1: are coming here and stealing this corporate and scientific technology.
Speaker 1: Does China see us as a threat? Or is it
Speaker 1: cultural that they want to be number one? What keeps
Speaker 1: them from just wanting to be, you know, one of
Speaker 1: two superpowers that does very well in the world. Well, Uh,
Speaker 1: I think that all rising powers rising to super power
Speaker 1: of status in world history want to be number one,
Speaker 1: So it would be you know, really, I think in
Speaker 1: ethnocentric mistake to call that cultural. Um. I think that
Speaker 1: it's not so much fear as ambition. Uh. They are
Speaker 1: arising superpower. They are, after all, the largest country in
Speaker 1: the world in population. And you've got to keep in
Speaker 1: mind Chinese history that China once was the Middle Kingdom,
Speaker 1: a great center of learning and commerce. Uh, the most
Speaker 1: successful or certainly at various points in world history, one
Speaker 1: of the most successful, advanced, admired civilizations in the world.
Speaker 1: And I think beyond any kind of communist party doctrine,
Speaker 1: because they're not trying to make the world communist, but
Speaker 1: they are trying to penetrate and in sway it to
Speaker 1: its point of view. Uh. They do certainly seek domination
Speaker 1: within Asia. I think there's no question about that. They're
Speaker 1: trying to push the US out of Asia militarily and
Speaker 1: to marginalize it economically and geopolitically. But after Asia, what
Speaker 1: you look at what they're doing around the world, there's
Speaker 1: these similar influence efforts. Uh in Europe as well. Uh.
Speaker 1: They've got this Belt and Road initiative that's extending their
Speaker 1: economic reach and clout and domination. I would even say
Speaker 1: in Africa, Latin American, elsewhere Central Asia. Uh, And it
Speaker 1: looks like a pretty global ambition. How different has the
Speaker 1: leadership of Ing been from his present predecessors. Well, that's
Speaker 1: a good question. I think that there is both a
Speaker 1: qualitative and an incremental difference. The incremental differences look as
Speaker 1: you go from John Zamin to Jujent Tao, they each
Speaker 1: have had ten year terms and now since two thousand
Speaker 1: and twelve to Shi jin Ping, you do see a
Speaker 1: progression in China's reach and ambition and boldness on the
Speaker 1: world stage. That's an incremental evolution of Chinese power and ambition.
Speaker 1: The qualitative one, I think is that she is much
Speaker 1: more aggressive and um bold and unapologetic about his intentions.
Speaker 1: And you look at what China has done under his leadership,
Speaker 1: build these islands in the South China Sea out of nothing,
Speaker 1: dredging sand and creating new islands which they are militarizing
Speaker 1: with air bases and radar stations and so on. And
Speaker 1: you see in aggressiveness that we haven't seen before. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I've read a number of stories about China showing up
Speaker 1: in countries where they just never seem to have any
Speaker 1: interest before or couldn't have any interest in Middle East
Speaker 1: or sending ships places that seems to be ongoing. Hmm. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean they've got a military base now or some
Speaker 1: kind of base in Djibouti in the Middle East, and
Speaker 1: you know, they want to be a world power. And
Speaker 1: I will repeat they are the largest country in the world.
Speaker 1: They've been the most economically dynamic country in the world. Um,
Speaker 1: there are a permanent member of the Security Council. They
Speaker 1: increasingly show up to international meetings astonishingly well prepared, and
Speaker 1: you know, they increasingly are able to dominate the agenda
Speaker 1: because of that, which is to say, I mean give
Speaker 1: them credit for this. They are doing their homework on
Speaker 1: international issues. Uh So, you know, uh, they are a
Speaker 1: rise in global power and we'd better wake up to it.
Speaker 1: You know, Russia has hacked our election and attacked our
Speaker 1: democracy in a way that no other country has ever done.
Speaker 1: But China's breadth of penetration of our society, our economy,
Speaker 1: our various democratic institutions is far broader than Russia's, and
Speaker 1: China's potential to eclipse the United States as a world
Speaker 1: power is dramatically greater than Russia's, which has a tenth
Speaker 1: of the population of China and is never going to
Speaker 1: catch up to the United States again militarily or economically.
Speaker 1: Let's talk a little bit about the Confucius Institutes on
Speaker 1: American university campuses. I've been harshly critical of them. I
Speaker 1: I've read the summary of your report. You're a little
Speaker 1: more charitable to me. They are, you know, they're they're
Speaker 1: so obviously a way to get Chinese propaganda and or
Speaker 1: intelligence agents into the country. Any any benefits seems to
Speaker 1: me incidental. Is that too too cynical. It's probably a
Speaker 1: little too cynical. Uh, in the following sense. I mean,
Speaker 1: we have a Confucius Institute here at Stanford. Frankly, I
Speaker 1: don't know what it does. There's a plaque on a wall.
Speaker 1: There's never been any sign that they have much impact.
Speaker 1: I think the way to to think about it is
Speaker 1: as follows. Uh, At you know, well resourced colleges and
Speaker 1: university Stanford, Berkeley, so on, that have um a lot
Speaker 1: of resources to fund their own language instruction, a Confucius
Speaker 1: Institute is probably just a small layer on the top
Speaker 1: Uh that if the relationship is transparent, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: might add some some marginal value of teaching or or
Speaker 1: cultural exchange or so on. But at the many, many
Speaker 1: colleges and universities, not only in the United States but
Speaker 1: in Europe and elsewhere where, they don't have the money
Speaker 1: to fund Chinese language instruction. And this money is very valued, uh,
Speaker 1: and it's kind of the only thing going. The opportunity
Speaker 1: to kind of drive the agenda of what's discussed about
Speaker 1: China is much greater, And I think the bottom line
Speaker 1: we came to is that these contracts the universities sign
Speaker 1: between uh the university and the agency in China within
Speaker 1: the Education ministry called the han Bond that runs these things,
Speaker 1: they're all secret now, and it is just a violation
Speaker 1: of academic freedom and proper procedure in universities for any
Speaker 1: such contract to be secret. UH. So, you know, if
Speaker 1: universities are going to sign these things, they've got to
Speaker 1: be transparent. They've got to be subjected to faculty review.
Speaker 1: Everybody's got to know exactly what's in them. The curriculum
Speaker 1: needs to be open to inspection. And there needs to
Speaker 1: be no commitment of any kind. Two issues that are
Speaker 1: off the table for discussion in the classroom or on
Speaker 1: the university or college campus. And just for personally, I
Speaker 1: don't think the Chinese will agree to those combustions for
Speaker 1: folks who are not familiar with it. How many of
Speaker 1: these Confucius institutes are there in the US at this point,
Speaker 1: I think like a hundred and fifties something like that
Speaker 1: instead a hundred in the world. Wow, I just you know,
Speaker 1: I appreciate a mid level university really wanting to be
Speaker 1: hip enough to have Chinese language and cultural you know,
Speaker 1: information available to their students. But these c I's Confucius
Speaker 1: Institute seemed to me that the guy who's come to
Speaker 1: defile my sister, but he gives me ice cream. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm just not going to be that grateful for the
Speaker 1: ice cream. I know why he's there, but you know,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't quite put in the provocative terms you did.
Speaker 1: But here's how I would put it. We want our
Speaker 1: young people to be learning Chinese and to be able
Speaker 1: to engage in a effective way. Uh. You know, the
Speaker 1: largest and one of the most powerful and dynamic countries
Speaker 1: in the world. So that's all good, but it shouldn't
Speaker 1: be funded by the People's Republic of China. Let's pass
Speaker 1: a new National Defense Education Act like we did in
Speaker 1: the Cold War with respect to the Soviet Union, and
Speaker 1: have the US government stepped up to the plate to
Speaker 1: fund college and university language instruction in critical languages like Chinese, Russian, Arabic,
Speaker 1: and FARSI. I think that's the proper response. I know
Speaker 1: that you have written a lot books articles about democracy
Speaker 1: the promotion of democracy around the world than the last
Speaker 1: couple of years, democracy has been taken a hit and
Speaker 1: receding on the world stage a little bit. How much
Speaker 1: does it concern you that if China were to become
Speaker 1: the dominant economy or a peer of ours, a full
Speaker 1: peer of ours militarily, there'll be less of an argument
Speaker 1: for democracy. I mean, for quite a while now you've
Speaker 1: been able to say, look to the world, the most powerful,
Speaker 1: richest country in the world is a democracy. Well, if
Speaker 1: if you can say, look, the world's most powerful country
Speaker 1: is a dictatorship, that's going to be more of an
Speaker 1: argument for that, isn't it. Uh. It's a very trenchant
Speaker 1: point you've just made, and it is one that the
Speaker 1: Chinese are pushing when they bring journalists and politicians from
Speaker 1: developing emerging market countries for training and cultural exchange. Increasingly
Speaker 1: they are saying, we have a better model, we have
Speaker 1: a more dynamic model. And our challenge now is not
Speaker 1: only to wake up, to inform ourselves about, to be
Speaker 1: vigilant about and and to strengthen our institutions against these
Speaker 1: forms of inappropriate influence and penetration, but we've got to
Speaker 1: make our own democracy work better, uh, and in a
Speaker 1: less dysfunctional and polarized way. If we are going to
Speaker 1: be able to make the claim that democracy is the
Speaker 1: best form of government, uh, and can actually deliver practical
Speaker 1: solutions to people's problems. You need to be able to
Speaker 1: stay solvent, for instance. Oh my goodness, yeah, we could
Speaker 1: start there. Well, there's there's absolutely no arguing those of
Speaker 1: us who have spent any time looking at it about
Speaker 1: the efficacy of dictatorships for doing certain things. They're not
Speaker 1: bogged down by the whole voting ridiculous environmental concerns and
Speaker 1: and you know, way, I got to tell you, as
Speaker 1: a social scientist who studies this issue that, um, their argument,
Speaker 1: which you've just kind of advanced as a as a hypothesis,
Speaker 1: really doesn't hold water. If you look at the evidence,
Speaker 1: all the evidence, and not just cherry picked China or
Speaker 1: you know, South Korea from the sixties through the eighties. Uh,
Speaker 1: you find that the democracies do, on balance at least
Speaker 1: as well and in some places in historical periods, including
Speaker 1: Africa today, better than authoritarian regimes in delivering development. So
Speaker 1: their argument isn't even true. Oh, I believe that wholeheartedly,
Speaker 1: you wholeheartedly. I was just talking about the short term.
Speaker 1: You know that the appearance of a benefit if I'm
Speaker 1: an African warlord, the trains run on time. Sure. You know,
Speaker 1: you're probably familiar with Tom Friedman's articles over the years
Speaker 1: in the New York Times about how much more efficient
Speaker 1: China is because of their right the way their government works. Yeah. Correct, Yeah,
Speaker 1: if you need fifty thousand miles of road built, they're
Speaker 1: going to do it all more quickly in China. But
Speaker 1: there's an enormous cost to that, for instance, including trying
Speaker 1: to manipulate how many people you have in the country
Speaker 1: and how many kids people can have them. And when
Speaker 1: you start, you know, drilling down that deep in society,
Speaker 1: it gets complicated. That's one of their challenges going forward,
Speaker 1: isn't it. Well, it's much worse than that. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're getting rid of the one child policy now because
Speaker 1: it's had the perverse effect of creating a rapidly aging society.
Speaker 1: In fact, they're freaking out about it. It's happening so fast.
Speaker 1: But the more ominous thing, and this gets back to
Speaker 1: your point about what what the implications are for the
Speaker 1: future of freedom in the world. They are creating an
Speaker 1: Orwellian surveillance state in most cities. Now there's a surveillance
Speaker 1: camera on you know, every corner. They've got the most
Speaker 1: sophisticated surveillance cameras in the world. They lead the world
Speaker 1: in the technology of digital facial recognition, so they can
Speaker 1: figure out who it is on the streets who might
Speaker 1: be holding a protest sign or whatever. They've got technology
Speaker 1: that they can go up to someone and say, give
Speaker 1: me your cell phone and then basically sucked the whole
Speaker 1: contents out of it so they can see what they're
Speaker 1: reading and who they're talking to. Increasingly, in Shinjong Province,
Speaker 1: which is a completely totalitarian situation now in the northwest
Speaker 1: of China, they've got not only hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 1: people and concentration camps for quote re education, but there's
Speaker 1: swabbing everybody's d n A to build a complete and
Speaker 1: total portrait of every individual. I mean, this is almost
Speaker 1: beyond George Orwell. And this is what we're looking at
Speaker 1: when artificial intelligence and high technology meets uh, you know,
Speaker 1: a Lemon Leninist communist party state and perhaps gene editing
Speaker 1: babies to you know, who knows where they're going with that.
Speaker 1: So yeah, right, you know, I worry that the history
Speaker 1: of mankind is that the tighter dictatorship squeeze, the more
Speaker 1: likely it is that that rebellions will emerge and resistance
Speaker 1: will grow. But with the technological edge that China, for instance,
Speaker 1: has these days and the measures you are just describing,
Speaker 1: I don't know how you get a nascent rebellion going. Well.
Speaker 1: I think we've entered uncharted territory and we we actually
Speaker 1: don't know where this is leading. But you asked before
Speaker 1: what are they afraid of? And the answer and the
Speaker 1: real answers, I don't think they're afraid of the United States.
Speaker 1: They're afraid of their own people, and that's why they're
Speaker 1: implementing all these measures. That's interesting, which is always the
Speaker 1: case with dictatorships. Clearly their biggest concern is, you know,
Speaker 1: arrival in their own country kills them in the middle
Speaker 1: of the night, not not another country. So if we
Speaker 1: were to kind of drape of an overall theme around
Speaker 1: the conversation about China and its efforts to infiltrate what
Speaker 1: was it? You had a great quote from malk In Turnbull,
Speaker 1: former Australian Prime Minister uh covert, coercive or corrupting efforts
Speaker 1: to penetrate and sway. If you were to just describe
Speaker 1: what our attitude ought to be broadly toward China, toward
Speaker 1: Chinese scholars, Chinese companies, Chinese initiatives, how would you summarize
Speaker 1: it for the layman? I would say I'd used the
Speaker 1: term we use in the title of our report, constructive vigilance.
Speaker 1: We need to educate ourselves, our national government institutions need
Speaker 1: to help local institutions educate ourselves. Not to several ties
Speaker 1: with China, that would be a huge mistake, but to
Speaker 1: go into into these ties, UH, mindful of the risks,
Speaker 1: mindful of their agenda, aware of who we're dealing with
Speaker 1: and what they're hidden ties maybe to the communist parties state,
Speaker 1: and demanding both autonomy for ourselves in deciding who's going
Speaker 1: to be involved in the exchanges of relationships and reciprocity
Speaker 1: that they shouldn't be able to have unfettered access to
Speaker 1: our society. Our institutions are politicians, and our not being
Speaker 1: able to UH send journalists and scholars and other actors
Speaker 1: over there on more or less our own open terms.
Speaker 1: Larry Diamond, Senior fellow with the Hoover Institution, really really
Speaker 1: interesting conversation. Can't wait to read more. Of the report
Speaker 1: and will have a link so that our folks can
Speaker 1: find it very easily. We sure appreciate the time. Well done,
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, thank you. I do think that
Speaker 1: that's uh he called it a trenchant point. I don't
Speaker 1: know what that word means, so I didn't know if
Speaker 1: he was saying that's a good point or or if
Speaker 1: you know, once you let's grown up speak No, No,
Speaker 1: that compliments no, But I do, I do. I do
Speaker 1: have the concern that if the most powerful country in
Speaker 1: the world is a dictatorship, it's a lot harder to
Speaker 1: sell democracy. Yeah, well, and we have to sell democracy.
Speaker 1: I was actually gonna ask if we got a chance,
Speaker 1: if if Larry is familiar with the book I have
Speaker 1: referenced many times with the Dictator's Handbook UM subtitle why
Speaker 1: Bad Behavior Is Almost Always Good Politics by Bruce and
Speaker 1: Bueno de Mesquite that and Alistair Smith, and they talk
Speaker 1: about how effective dictatorships are at certain stuff. But then
Speaker 1: they get into the fact that if you're talking about
Speaker 1: clean water, adequate medical care, uh, the life expectancy, infant
Speaker 1: mortality rates, just every measure of you have a not
Speaker 1: miserable life. Democracies always win well, and number one I
Speaker 1: know is always innovation. You do not get Steve Jobs
Speaker 1: coming out of dictatorships. You just don't get that this
Speaker 1: is impossible, which is a drum we ought to be
Speaker 1: beating like crazy all the time because listen, if I'm
Speaker 1: an African UH dictator, number one, I should be deposed immediately.
Speaker 1: You should. You can do better than that. Um. But
Speaker 1: if I'm an African dictator and I'm thinking of mmmmm,
Speaker 1: do I go with the American model? Because you know,
Speaker 1: my people are starving. I've got enough money to distribute
Speaker 1: to the elites in the army, so we're okay. The
Speaker 1: treasury is good enough to keep me in power, but barely.
Speaker 1: Do I want to go the American model? Do I
Speaker 1: want to liberalize? Do I want to give people rights
Speaker 1: and and have them vote and risk losing my power
Speaker 1: and and probably being tried from my many crimes financial
Speaker 1: and otherwise. Or do I want to embrace the Chinese model?
Speaker 1: You know, we'll keep a dictator ship, will liberalize around
Speaker 1: the edges economically, but will you also surveil our people
Speaker 1: and tell them what they're doing? Please? Please? Warlord Joe
Speaker 1: is not going to take three minutes thinking about that,
Speaker 1: And that's why you've got to just absolutely promote the
Speaker 1: value of democracy as hard as you can, and you're
Speaker 1: gonna you're gonna lose a lot of those you know,
Speaker 1: those those battles. But he made a good point. But
Speaker 1: but I'm sorry, but that shining example is still gonna
Speaker 1: be out in front of the people who are oppressed,
Speaker 1: and you hope someday they're gonna overthrow me and and
Speaker 1: get to what's actually good for them. It's just human
Speaker 1: nature to want to be number one. That's just I mean,
Speaker 1: that's just the way I'll would sway everybody's built. So
Speaker 1: it's not something special to the Chinese that you're on
Speaker 1: the cusp of being number one. And you know, if
Speaker 1: you're the number two NBA team right behind the Warriors,
Speaker 1: who's gonna say that's good enough? Why can't we be
Speaker 1: a number two is great? The number two prost expert,
Speaker 1: number number two is great. That's just not the way
Speaker 1: anybody is built. So do they have and I'm serious
Speaker 1: about this, do they have foam number one fingers in China?
Speaker 1: If they make them in China? Wonder if they have
Speaker 1: them for you know whatever. You know, Hunan provinces, you know,
Speaker 1: the other province in soccer, do they wave foam? Number one?
Speaker 1: In my lifetime, will trying to be the number one
Speaker 1: economy and the number one military power in the world. Maybe, ye, maybe,
Speaker 1: probably almost certainly the economy. If you get hit by
Speaker 1: of us today, No, no, they will not. There's that.
Speaker 1: See a lot of eubles. That's a trenchant point. Thank
Speaker 1: you very much. I hope you've enjoyed the Armstrong in
Speaker 1: any podcast.