​  
Mr. Power is a social science teacher in an american high school. He happens to be assigned to teach a class with lower performance students who shied away from AP classes. In his class, he raised the topic why people can be brainwashed easily, the students poh-pohed his idea and did not believe him. Then he raised a bet with the class that he could prove his point within one semester provided the class would recognize and respect him as a teacher. The students agreed. Then the teacher began his process, first he requested that all students should address him as Mr. Power and answer him with yes-sir standing up straight. The students agreed and they began addressing him respectfully and answered with yes-sir.
 
Then a week later, he asked the class to stand up and stump their feet so the ashes would fall on the AP History class directly below them downstairs. The students started sporadically but with Mr. Power’s encouragement, the whole class engaged the stumping more rigorously and more synchronously. The AP History teacher came to the social science class to see Mr. Power. Mr. Power greeted him outside the class and shoved him away simply saying I gave them permission to do an experiment. Next, Mr. Power told the class that they were very exceptional and gained respect from other teachers and students. He urged them to pick a name for the class and pick a theme color for their clothing. The students enthusiastically obliged calling themselves Raging Hippos (RH4HR for Human Rights) and picked their theme color of all blue or all red. The class by “shame and blame” made every classmate to conform to this color code and a common behavior. Mr. Power then encouraged the class to show their presence by putting the RH (and hippo) logo all over the campus. The class did it vigorously and happily.
 
Mr. Power then praised the class for their unity and encouraged them to enter all class competitions to demonstrate their ability and power. The class did, they won in tug of war, they triumphed in water pollo and took the trophe of lacrosse using all means, rage and cheat included. The class dressed in the same color, spoke in same language and tone, and viewed others as an inferior class. Then, Mr. Power addressed them in class and congratulated them for getting a passing grade for the entire class, but he then said: “you had all been brainwashed! I had proven my point that the mass could be easily brainwashed.” A raging student, Tiger, jumped up and said: No, Raging Hippo will go on, you can not stop us, we will change the entire school. One student sheepishly stood up and said, we should listen to Mr. Power, but Tiger punched him on the nose and pulled out a gun and asked Mr. Power to agree with him. Mr. Power refused then Tiger shot him and then himself (a very sad ending!) Or Mr. Power agreed and the RH group went to the Administration building forcing the school superintendent to accept their demands (a truly dangerous scenario!).
 
The above story was fictitious but drawn from many facts to illustrate the phenomenon we are observing in our society and in our international relations. Think about it, the mass media have been able to change the mood of our society with their story reporting. Over a few events in a short period, masses could be raged to conduct violent riots. Think about Black Lives Matter and police brutality, was there any brainwashing? Yes, I do believe so. Look at our international relations, the mass media (with government coercion perhaps) can build a hate attitude against another country (and her people) with persistent fake news and twisted stories. Do recall how easily people can be brainwashed like the above story in a social science class. It is amazing in the real world, our China policy could be so easily and quickly changed by a few China haters occupying our government policy positions. What do they have? A few hate-China books written years ago with authors never setting foot in China.
 
The current US-China relations are so twisted and biased leading to a dangerous war scenario. Many old timer China experts are “shamed and blamed” if they did not conform to the current brainwashing wave. A few who would speak out would not be given opportunities. There was no honest and open debate on the U.S. China policy among scholars and citizens. When such ‘hate China’ bias being applied to academic world targeting Chinese scholars and students, the protesting voice is ignored or silenced. This is a dangerous phenomenon which should not happen in a democratic nation, but it is happening which may result in a sad ending or a dangerous scenario:  Posing a danger to our nation and to the world!
 
Our current Secretary of State, Mr. Mike Pompeo, is like Mr. Power trying systematically to transform his students. With his experience as Director of Central Intelligence Agency, he admitted in a speech at Texas A & M University: “We lie, we cheat, and we steal.” And yet as our top diplomat now, he is declaring a “war plan” against China at a recent speech at the Nixon library with a purpose to white wash Nixon’s strategy of opening and allying with China to combat the expansionary Soviet Union (which was accomplished by the Reagan Administration!) Pompeo's another purpose was demonizing the CCP leadership in China. He tried to separate the Chinese people from the CCP, yet CCP is having a much higher approval rating from Chinese people than any of our Republican or Democratic Party ever received from American citizens.
 
Perhaps, Pompeo believes he can brainwash the American citizens easily, but it is a wishful assumption that he can brainwash the Chinese citizens to revolt against their government. The Chinese lives have never been better before. The Chinese people have more freedom than ever before. The Chinese citizens have traveled to more foreign countries than ever before. It is ignorant to think that brainwashing will work to collapse China.
 
China might have 'cheated' in business, trade or technology, but which country didn't? Just review the history of industrial revolution to the present, the Western powers cheated and looted in the worse way (including the U.S., U.K., Germany, France and others) and Japan cheated and looted just as badly. If Pompeo insisted on using brainwashing to establish a 'hate-China' policy, I could predict that it would not succeed. This is simply because that American citizens as well as Chinese citizens can do better than high school students by using factcheck when needed. The Americans and Chinese will not be fooled for too long. Therefore, I may conclude that a China policy based on brainwashing will not work but put the U.S. and the world in danger.
Ifay Chang. Ph.D., Inventor, Author, TV Game Show Host and Columnist (www.us-chinaforum.org) as well as serving as Trustee, Somers Central School District.
 
 
 
 

​ 
One of the headline news recently was John Bolton's new book, The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir, published on June 23, 2020 by Simon & Schuster. (This publisher also has two other books about Trump's family, one, The Art of Her (Melania) Deal by Mary Jordan and another, Too Much and Never Enough, by Dr. Mary L Trump, Trump's niece.)  The Wall Street Journal published a 4000 words synopsis of Bolton's new book raising White House's objection for its publication. After carefully reading the WSJ article, I came to a conclusion different from my thoughts before reading the introduction. Originally, I thought Bolton might be writing a book to help Trump's campaign (to make up) or he was writing about his 'being wronged” and presenting his political thoughts after his experience as the Director of the National Security Council in the White House (WH). But I was wrong, Bolton seemed to be focused on making money through the book, publishing in the election year and focusing on Trump's obsession for getting re-elected. Nothing wrong with making money from writing a book after a WH experience, Obama and Clinton both made it alright. However, what is disappointing about Bolton's book is that it shows that Bolton has little to say about national security or his political insights or new views. WH responded by saying he is lying, but my conclusion is that Bolton has very little to say. He has no imagination. He can't even lie very well.
 
Bolton started with American's China strategy with two hypotheses. First assumption is that if China were developed and became prosperous, she would observe international rules (hence in 2001 China was admitted into WTO), The second assumption is that if China became rich, she would become more democratic not competing and engaging in Cold War. Bolton said the facts were just the opposite. I think Bolton held this obsolete legacy without the ability of learning on the job which caused his demise. I think the differences between the U.S. and China result from that the U.S. puts capitalism first and socialism second and China is just the other way around. China is doing everything for her 1.4 billion people and the U.S. is doing everything to preserve her capital to continuously gain enough profits. For example, the U.S. is used to applying her power to protect her capital and generate adequate return. She  regards China's One Belt and One Road program as an invasion plan rather than from China's view that she is trying to generate enough job opportunities for her large population and oversupply of labor and production. China needs to create new jobs and  markets to support her people. She hopes it will be a win-win program for the world. Although Trump did not have much foreign policy experience, but he is a fast learner through many debates held in the WH (Bolton admitted that there were no conclusions from debates on trade dispute, likely on many other issues). Trump probably see through Bolton's lack of fresh ideas and let him go, but he and Pompeo do not seem to have any new idea other than repeating the stale rhetoric against China.  
 
Bolton charges that Trump is spending too much time on trade issues, no progress, no strategy and often flipflop. From Bolton's own description, I suspect that Trump is learning on the job and uses his businessman instincts and smarts to guide him. Bolton blames Trump for dropping the Tariff from 25% to 10% in December 2018 as a give-in, but I can imagine Trump's thinking, Christmas is coming, 25% tariff is hurting American people more. Thus Trump yielded on Tariff to get the Chinese back to negotiation on substantive buying and meaningful structure reform. Judging from the Phase One Trade Agreement US-China reached, the U.S. did not lose much but did get China to commit to buy $200B more  goods and services from us  over 2017 level in  two years. Even with COVID-19 Pandemic, according to Lighthizer, China has already bought $100B goods ($30B soybeans, 2/3 of US production and largest US beef importer). Bolton simply can not understand Trump's “incoherence” which is growing out of his cunning business mentality and fast learning on reality to find short cuts. Bolton's old textbook approach, especially not working very well, can not be effective for his job in the WH. 
 
Bolton also charges Trump placing winning re-election far more important than any other issue. How can he not know that is the characteristic of American Democracy (and of course for authoritarian government as well), no president would not put the re-election as top priority. Bolton is either naive or stubborn in challenging the president's re-election goal which is the President's score card and legacy defined by the voters. Bolton states that Trump is using the G20 as opportunities to meet with Xi for trade negotiation and helping his re-election. He focused on the praising words exchanged between the two leaders and took too seriously for their worth. China always pride herself claiming she will never interfere in another country's internal affairs. Do you think both Xi and Trump will take the phrase “Please do me a favor” seriously in diplomacy? China believes in signed black words on white paper, but never any fancy cute conversations. Bolton ought to have learned that on the job. Bolton also says that Trump mixes his personal interest with national interest. Personally, I feel, the American political system makes the President as the nation and the nation as the President. When Trump suggested to hold the 2020 G7 at his Florida resort, you may think it is a conflict of interest, President Trump thinks it is a legitimate business opportuni8ty fair and convenient to him.
 
Bolton has no positive words for Trump. He mentioned 'Huawei' which Trump initially was not engaged, but Bolton had no idea of his own on this technology war which is pushed by the Pentagon saying it causes a military exposure. Be it that may, it is likely Pentagon's own mistake in letting our technology slip and dependent on foreign products. Again, Bolton has no idea of his own, now that Trump is testing water and realizing that, just like trade war, technology war is no less complex and we are mutually intertwined. Bolton also mentioned the Taiwan Unification, Hon Kong unrest, Xinjiang Ughur and COVID-19 pandemic and claimed that Trump should have taken advantage of these issues as leverage against China, but Trump pondered why he should  meddle in Taiwan and Hong Kong (both as China's internal issue) and expressed he was not interested in making Tianmen memorial statement. (Trump said that it was 15 years ago but actually it was an event more than 30 years ago). Trump is honest about that the U.S. has human rights issue as well. What is in it for us to raise human rights issue against China? Following the events, we see that the Congress has just passed a law about Xinjiang Uighur Human Rights which Xi has told Trump that China is not building concentration camps in Xinjiang but job training centers to help local economy to fight poverty and terrorism from external influences. We may not believe everything CCP says, but lifting people out of poverty is a fact and no terrorist event in Xijiang for the past three years is true as well. Otherwise,
 
Based on the Walls Street Journal introduction and the foreign affairs occurred during the Trump Administration, I may predict Bolton's memoir can never raise to the level of Kissinger's White House Years Memoir. Therefore, I hold no expectation from Bolton's unimaginative book!
           

​ 
To predict outcome of political events, especially the Presidential election, one must absorb news inputs broadly, follow event development closely and then make an in-depth analysis. In the digital world today, it is not so difficult to achieve the first two steps, but there are challenges to sort out the facts (apart from fake news), to make acute observation (apart from political spinning) and to reveal the truth and insight beyond the mass media spin. If one has an analytical mind and a strong interest in politics, one may take a brave stand to predict the outcome of the political event such as the 2020 US Presidential Election. This article is heading towards that direction. The Trump-Pence and Biden-Harris tickets are written on a red and blue balloon respectively. Through our analysis we hope to pop one balloon to predict the winner before November 3rd.

Trump won the 2016 Presidential election as a dark horse. He excited his campaign with his strong personality, ruthless attacks on the shortcomings of the previous Administration and his fellow contestants. He won by promising to treat America First and make her Great Again. Trump’s first term is very eventful focused on  carrying out his campaign promises. Trump’s actions and tweets inflamed the media because of his unorthodox behavior in creating and dealing with events and his ability of toying with the media with attention catching remarks through his tweets and news conferences. He survived through a merciless impeachment engineered by the Democrats. He launched a controversial trade war based on his America First Principle. He floundered in his management of the COVID-19 pandemic, a natural disaster not really his or anyone’s fault, but he has chosen to blame the COVID-19 and its damage on economy entirely on China, adding to his blame list: China was the culprit for American jobs lost and industries failed. At this point, the polls are casting doubts on his chance of winning the second term.

Joe Biden as the former Vice President won his party primary largely because of being an easier rallying figure among frustrating Democrats who had been divided by over a dozen Presidential candidates only united by ‘dump-Trump’ sentiment. Biden has taken the strategy of unifying his party by integrating his fellow contestants’ ideas (mostly liberal proposals on domestic issues) rather than dwelling deep into issues with his own analyses and solutions. He and his party recognize that the selection of his running mate is extremely important for winning the pivoting voting blocks categorized as women, black, immigrants such as Hispanic and Asians who are still sitting on the fence weighing the General Happiness Index and performance of economy. Hence, it was no surprise that Biden selected Kampala Harris, a woman, a black and a daughter of immigrants as his Vice President running mate.

Traditionally, the incumbent team would not change the running mate (unless for health reason) simply for validating a successful current Administration. Pence has been a very supportive Vice President in a similar way as Biden was for Obama. Pence had no scandalous stories. Pence was explicit in his anti-LBGT position which had been attacked by both Biden and Harris. Due to the COVID-19, this year’s campaign rallies and debates will be very different from the traditional format and practice. This actually could give Biden a slight benefit since Trump was quite effective in exciting his campaign rallies and in debating his opponent with his attack tactics, quite infectious in the media. Biden in contrast is slow on his feet in delivering speeches or responses. However, Senator Harris is an effective speaker as shown by her speech against Betsy Devos’s confirmation hearing for Secretary of Education. Pence had to cast his deciding vote to pass Devos’s confirmation. The coming Pence Harris debate has already been touted as a must see TV with odds favoring Harris, however, the real impact on the voting blocks will likely depend on the messages exchanged in the two debates.

Trump-Pence versus Biden-Harris Presidential contest is basically a red (conservative) against blue (liberal) bipartisan competition ideologically similar to the 2016 election. Even though the polls are giving Biden-Harris a few percentage points lead but that by no means assures a Democrat Victory. Biden wrote to his supporters: "You make a lot of important decisions as president. But the first one is who you select to be your Vice President. I've decided that Kamala Harris is the best person to help me take this fight to Donald Trump and Mike Pence,” This quote revealed Biden’s mind that the 2020 Presidential election is still very much a fight with unpredictable outcome. Thus, his VP selection was more based on ‘vote block’ calculation than on VP qualification - An unfortunate and sad reality about democracy - electing vote-getters rather than selecting most capable and qualified leader.

Harris, the daughter of Jamaican father and an Indian mother (both Immigrants), not only may add women votes and black votes for Biden but also may add some Asian (Indian) American votes for the Biden-Harris ticket. However, for the broader Asian American population, the B-H versus T-P Presidential election may present a difficult choice deserving an in-depth analysis. If the election were dominated by the domestic issues (economy +), the Asian population is generally divided into blue (Democrats) and red (Republicans) factions resulting in a mutually canceled voting result. This phenomenon causes political candidates paying less attention to the Asian Americans’ demands (in contrast, the Jewish voters tend to be a more united block thus can better command the politicians' attention to Jewish interests).

In the 2020 election, the U.S. China policy has become a strong factor in influencing the voting outcome since the mass media narrative has been tying American economy (security, happiness, …) negatively to the rise of China. The Pivot to Asia policy initiated by the Obama Administration was targeting at containing China, but the Trump Administration has elevated the containment policy to a higher level, not only blaming China as the culprit for America’s shrinking influence on the world stage and her economic problems but also treating China as the threatening competitor. Pompeo's recent speech at the Nixon library  openly described a ‘war plan’ against China, urging the U.S. allies (with keen effort in recruiting India, a non-alignment nation) to form a U.S. led coalition against China ranging from trade restrictions, technology sanctions to military exercises. Since the breakout of COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S.-China relation hit the bottom witnessing the U.S. playing the Taiwan card (selling arms to Taiwan and encouraging its independence movement) and Hong Kong and Xinjiang Human Rights accusation.

The Asian voter population are generally less vocal about American politics but they, comparing to White Americans, are more informed and sensitive to Foreign Affairs. The current hostile U.S. China Policy will present a difficult choice to the Asian Americans, especially the Chinese Americans and the American immigrants from India, Vietnam , the Philippine, etc.. The two parties and the T-P and B-H tickets appear to be united on the China policy which may cause the Asian Americans to shy away from voting (with no good choice). The Asian Americans think that a hostile China policy, or worse a war plan, will lead to a disaster in Asia, the U.S. and the world. So the author would predict a less turn-out of Asian American voters in the 2020 Presidential election. This phenomenon will make picking or predicting a winner more difficult at this point.

However, if either B-H or T-P would tone down the senseless 'blame China' or 'hate China' rhetoric and advocate a more sensible ‘Pivot to Asia Peace’ policy and commitment, the election outcome would be very different. Perhaps for the first time, the Asian American voters may show solidarity in supporting one U.S. Presidential choice, hence the Asian Americans may influence the outcome of the 2020 election. This prediction will generally stand even with further analysis on the Asian American voters sentiments in their subgroups, say  pro-Mainland China, pro-Taiwan, pro-India, pro-ASEAN, pro-Hong Kong protests and anti-Hong Kong Protests and pro-BLM (Black Live Matters) and anti-BLM. Perhaps, understanding the Asian Americans’ different views on the U.S. foreign policy may become important in determining the winner of the presidential election. This will be a discussion in a future column.