Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

A dangerous loss of trust

A dangerous loss of trust
Getty Images

William Natbony is an attorney and business executive specializing in investment management, finance, business law and taxation. He is the author of The Lonely Realist, a blog directed at bridging the partisan gap by raising questions and making pointed observations about politics, economics, international relations and markets.

In a recent editorial in the New York Times, Tom Friedman focused on how trust has evaporated. Although his subject was U.S.-China relations, the sad fact is that the 21st Century’s loss of trust is broader and far more dangerous, internationally and everywhere in between. However, the consequences of the ongoing global contest between America and China is an appropriate starting point in addressing the question of how best to rebuild trust.


Friedman’s thesis is that with the U.S. and China exchanging dual-use imported and exported goods and services, that are both products and potential weapons, neither side trusts the other to refrain from using the aforementioned for military, cyber, geopolitical and other hostile purposes. Assurances by one appears disingenuous to the other. Reasons for America’s mistrust include Communist Party control over Huawei, TikTok and other international champions, China’s aggressive militarization of strategic islands in the East and South China Seas, its accelerated take-over of Hong Kong, resistance to investigating the origins of COVID-19, its unprecedented peacetime military build-up, its suppression in Xinjiang, and its flaunting of World Trade Organization rules.

Examples of the United States’ untrustworthiness rest on its broken promises and inconsistency (including with respect to the Iran treaty), the weaponization of the SWIFT Dollar payment system, America’s imposition of economic sanctions against countries, companies and individuals that don’t “kow-tow” to America’s demands, and Presidents Obama’s and Trump’s “tough-talk-with-no-action” in places like Syria and North Korea, as well as America’s military and economic response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, America’s “pivot to Asia” intended to suppress China’s rise, and the reversal of President Nixon’s one-China policy in the face of China’s avowed intent to absorb Taiwan.

Put another way, the U.S. views China’s Communist Party-run authoritarian police-state as antithetical to the democratic principles and world order championed by the U.S., while China sees America as a decadent democracy desperately trying to hold onto power, wedded to a post-WWII world order that it is incapable of leading, with inconsistent policy-execution and a deteriorating ability to counter rising Chinese power. Each country’s actions thereby are intended to respond to the perceived threats posed by the other’s perfidious policies in a cycle that generates escalating distrust, and that suggests that the two countries indeed may be Destined for War (as Graham Allison has warned).

A Russian proverb warns not to trust without verification. “Trust but verify” was a 20th Century geopolitical prescription for de-escalation of incipient conflicts, successfully pursued by President Reagan in the 1980s to reduce Cold War tensions and achieve bilateral nuclear disarmament. Unfortunately, “trust but verify” is not a workable solution in the 21st Century. There is no effective method for verifying the purely peaceful use of digital information, technology and data and no means today for confirming what is going on behind the proverbial curtain. Although compliance with potential disarmament agreements might be made effective by remote monitoring of nuclear weaponry, missiles, and troop deployments, doing so with respect to information, technology and data would require a level of mutual cooperation impossible with China’s Orwellian police-state.

America consequently needs to focus on keeping its Chinese adversary closer, and its friends terribly close, as Sun Tzu advised in his textbook for tactical success, The Art of War. The sad fact is that America’s international influence has waned, largely due to inconsistent policies alternately pursued by the G.W. Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden administrations. Rebuilding international trust therefore will require consistent policy execution coupled with slow and arduous dialogue, a gradual pulling back from confrontations, and an increase in political and military communications.

China has built its strength by increasing its global presence as America has withdrawn from global commitments, reduced its international military presence and beggared its diplomatic outreach. China not only has pursued its Belt and Road Initiative, but has become the primary trading partner for a majority of Asian, African and South American countries, today being the leading lender to many of them.

China’s international influence-building has insulated it from the pressures necessary to require cooperation and the negotiation of appropriate verification mechanisms. Where America stepped back from international relationship-building, China has stepped forward and, by doing so, bought for itself international influence that has empowered its Orwellian militarism. Without foreign policy consistency, America will continue to erode its international influence, alienating friends and empowering enemies. Without a consistent policy of international economic influence-building, America will continue to cede leverage to China. America’s failure to build bridges with China – with the type of carrot-and-stick diplomacy employed by the Reagan Administration in the 1980s – and, at the same time, draw clearer red lines that would trigger American retaliation (which the Biden Administration admittedly has begun doing), have empowered China and its Axis allies. The fact is that the combination of America First isolationism and American cultural puritanism have undermined American power and influence. Examples abound: Although America’s NATO allies were not fulfilling their military spending obligations, that did not alter their importance as strategic and geopolitical partners; however, it did alter the Trump Administration’s European and Russian policies, and although Saudi Arabia’s ruler ordered the dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi, that did not alter the economic and geopolitical importance of Saudi Arabia. However, it did alter Biden Administration policy. U.S. foreign policy must focus on national priorities without applying political or moralistic filters. The task is to build bridges that both increase America’s international influence and create economic, political and cultural commonalities that align interests and deter conflict.

Not surprisingly, trust-building has become a lost American art. Democrats and Republicans are consumed by political, moral and cultural distractions rather than with policy-making that furthers the nation’s welfare. The two parties have abandoned joint international and domestic bridge-building in favor of flag-waving and internal confrontation. Trust flows from finding commonalities. If America’s politicians cannot bridge their domestic trust chasm, there is little hope that the U.S. will be able to prevail in its escalating global conflicts, including those with China.

Read More

Connecticut: Democracy, Innovation, and Economic Resilience

The 50: Connecticut

Credit: Hugo Balta

Connecticut: Democracy, Innovation, and Economic Resilience

The 50 is a four-year multimedia project in which the Fulcrum visits different communities across all 50 states to learn what motivated them to vote in the 2024 presidential election and see how the Donald Trump administration is meeting those concerns and hopes.

Hartford, Connecticut, stands as a living testament to American democracy, ingenuity, and resilience. As the state’s capital, it’s home to cultural landmarks like the Mark Twain House & Museum, where Twain penned The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, embodying the spirit of self-governance and creative daring that defines the region.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand blocking someone speaking

The Third Way has recently released a memo stating that the “stampede away from the Democratic Party” is partly a result of the language and rhetoric it uses.

Westend61/Getty Images

To Protect Democracy, Democrats Should Pay Attention to the Third Way’s List of ‘Offensive’ Words

More than fifty years ago, comedian George Carlin delivered a monologue entitled Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television.” It was a tribute to the legendary Lenny Bruce, whose “nine dirty words” performance led to his arrest and his banning from many places.

His seven words were “p—, f—, c—, c———, m———–, and t—.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Fox News’ Selective Silence: How Trump’s Worst Moments Vanish From Coverage
Why Fox News’ settlement with Dominion Voting Systems is good news for all media outlets
Getty Images

Fox News’ Selective Silence: How Trump’s Worst Moments Vanish From Coverage

Last week, the ultraconservative news outlet, NewsMax, reached a $73 million settlement with the voting machine company, Dominion, in essence, admitting that they lied in their reporting about the use of their voting machines to “rig” or distort the 2020 presidential election. Not exactly shocking news, since five years later, there is no credible evidence to suggest any malfeasance regarding the 2020 election. To viewers of conservative media, such as Fox News, this might have shaken a fully embraced conspiracy theory. Except it didn’t, because those viewers haven’t seen it.

Many people have a hard time understanding why Trump enjoys so much support, given his outrageous statements and damaging public policy pursuits. Part of the answer is due to Fox News’ apparent censoring of stories that might be deemed negative to Trump. During the past five years, I’ve tracked dozens of examples of news stories that cast Donald Trump in a negative light, including statements by Trump himself, which would make a rational person cringe. Yet, Fox News has methodically censored these stories, only conveying rosy news that draws its top ratings.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Flag / artificial intelligence / technology / congress / ai

The age of AI warrants asking if the means still further the ends—specifically, individual liberty and collective prosperity.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Liberty and the General Welfare in the Age of AI

If the means justify the ends, we’d still be operating under the Articles of Confederation. The Founders understood that the means—the governmental structure itself—must always serve the ends of liberty and prosperity. When the means no longer served those ends, they experimented with yet another design for their government—they did expect it to be the last.

The age of AI warrants asking if the means still further the ends—specifically, individual liberty and collective prosperity. Both of those goals were top of mind for early Americans. They demanded the Bill of Rights to protect the former, and they identified the latter—namely, the general welfare—as the animating purpose for the government. Both of those goals are being challenged by constitutional doctrines that do not align with AI development or even undermine it. A full review of those doctrines could fill a book (and perhaps one day it will). For now, however, I’m just going to raise two.

Keep ReadingShow less