Skip to main content

OPEN LETTER to The House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party

The Honorable Mike Gallagher, WI Chair

 Dear Mr. Chairman:

You and the Select Committee are misinformed about the Nature and Intentions of the Chinese Communist Party.

They are not our Enemy. They are not an Evil Force. Indeed, according to The World Bank, in the last 30-40 years under the governance of the CCP “more than 800 million people have been lifted out of poverty.” ( https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/china/overview#1 )

That is the greatest Humanitarian Achievement since the invention of vaccines.

The number of people helped exceeds that of the Berlin Airlift and the Marshall Plan combined. (Re-Interpreting the Meaning of China for the USA https://interpretat.blogspot.com/2022/02/re-interpreting-meaning-of-china-for-usa.html )

Something that you, the Committee, and the American people don’t hear from the US media is that the Chinese people appreciate what the CCP has done for them. Several different pre-COVID social science studies show this appreciation.

 

One 2020 study of the new middle class showed that “trust in the national government reaches 97% and trust in local governments is at 79%.” Also, over 82% of “the Chinese middle class are proud of their state” and want to continue living in China. (See “Re-Interpreting,” above.)

 

A Harvard study of Chinese public opinion, reported in 2020, that, “95.5 percent of respondents were either ‘relatively satisfied’ or ‘highly satisfied’ with Beijing.” (See “Re-Interpreting,” above. The Harvard authors affirm that the Chinese responses were authentic, and not based on fear or propaganda.)

 

In contrast, a 2020 Gallup poll in the US found that only 38 percent of respondents were satisfied with the US federal government.

There are two symbols that summarize China’s foreign policy.

First is The Great Wall. It was designed to keep enemies out, but also to mark China’s boundaries. They have done almost nothing to extend their boundaries beyond the Great Wall. (In 1979 China had a brief skirmish with Viet Nam over the boundary line, but walked away from the fight. That was the last time the PLA engaged in armed conflict – 44 years ago.)

Second, the Old Silk Road. The only reason China has for going out beyond the Great Wall is to establish trade. In every one of the thousands of cases, China seeks business contracts through negotiation. It has never used force for trade advantages.

Wherefore, for these, and other reasons, the United States government should stop indulging the Arms Industry’s desire to make the American people fear and hate China and the CCP. We don’t need to increase military spending to prepare for an attack that they have no intentions of ever bringing. Bills punishing and provoking China are an injustice and a grave mistake.

Your Fellow Citizen,

William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.

Twitter:

@InterpretivePo1 

Mastodon:

https://sciences.social/@WilliamJKelleher

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

RIP Prop 33 😭 What happened?

Why did Prop 33 lose in California? Here are three reasons, although there could be more:  1) Out of state billionaire real estate special interests, combined with in-state millionaire Landlord orgs, spent over $121,000,000 on telling scary falsehoods to Californians. Like, rent control will cause rents to go up, and affordable housing will disappear. They just needed to cause enough confusion about the meaning of Prop 33 to get the voters – even tenants! – to vote no.   2) As I explain in a vid on YouTube,* the California Legislative Analyst presented a biased and negative summary of Prop 33 in the Voter Guide. That was sent out to 22M Californians. For many voters, it was the one and only thing they would read about Prop 33. The law requires the Legislative Analyst to suggest the economic impact of a prop for both state and local gov – but only a negative view was given, and only for the state gov – “tens of millions” would be lost in tax revenues, it said. But renters w...
2 comments
Read more

Does Political Science Force Graduate Students into a Career of Irrelevancy?

Introduction       In a 2014 New York Times op ed, columnist Nicholas Kristof drew numerous defensive responses when he criticized political science for having very little “practical impact” in “the real world of politics.” [1] Rather than exercising civic leadership, political science has been most noticeably AWOL from public policy debates since WWII, he claims. And, in his view, there are “fewer public intellectuals on American university campuses today than a generation ago.” How does he account for this absence? Primarily, it is due to the academic interest in pursuing the quantitative approach in political science research. This kind of research is too often unintelligible to both the politically interested general public and the policy making community. Also, the “value neutrality” required for such studies prohibits advocacy. The pattern persists, in part, because graduate students must conform to the expectations of their professors, as a requirement ...
Post a Comment
Read more

If Political Science is Widely Regarded as Irrelevant to Real Politics, What Can be Done to Reverse that View?

Let Google AI Answer that Question with its Own Book Review: The main argument of William J. Kelleher's book,  Normative Political Science: An Exciting New Way to Do Poli Sci Research,  is that it is possible to scientifically measure the "operational goodness" of a political system. Rather than relying on subjective moral philosophy, Kelleher proposes a method that combines two established theories to provide an objective, data-driven evaluation.  Key components of the argument 1. Integration of established theories Kelleher's methodology is based on two frameworks: David Easton's Systems Theory: This theory conceptualizes a political system in terms of inputs, processes, and outputs. The system converts demands and support from the public into policies and decisions. Kelleher uses this as a "blueprint" for a political system. Robert S. Hartman's Value Science: This formal axiology provides a framework for meas...
Post a Comment
Read more