Editor’s Note: This is the first installment of Civil Discourse, a column where columnists Helen Nguyen and Addison Walsh share their perspectives on a political story or event covered by The Heights. This first column is a response to “Former Ambassador to China Warns of Competitive Loss to China if U.S. Fails To Unify.”
Helen:
What does competing with China even mean? As former U.S. ambassador to China Nicholas Burns said, the prize is “economic, cultural, political, and military power” across the globe, but the legitimacy of that power is granted by other nations based on image. This is a competition of moral persona.
In order to have economic and political influence over another nation, the United States would have to at least pretend to support its economic development and political stability. To have cultural and military power over another nation, we would have to demonstrate respect for its people and safety. This could be done by investing in foreign aid and engaging in proactive diplomacy. As the United States reassumes an isolationist stance during the second Donald Trump administration, China is taking our spot.
For example, China is pouring money into Africa and its infrastructure. Meanwhile, the United States dissolved the U.S. Agency for International Development.
China has also replaced the United States by providing medical aid to the continent, building public healthcare infrastructure and pushing research to combat infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS. While I acknowledge that there are legitimate financial motives for pulling out of Africa, it does not make a strong moral impression and leaves vulnerable nations susceptible to Chinese influence. Recently, African countries have even asked the United States to leave.
During the U.N. General Assembly in September, not only did Trump fail to make any pledges toward globally accepted initiatives, like combating climate change, but he also berated the organization and spent 55 of its 15 allotted minutes inflating his ego.
It is difficult to gain credibility as a global leader when Trump repeatedly told the United States. “[its] countries are going to hell.” Additionally, Trump’s creative critiques of climate change gave China a platform to present themselves as proactive leaders who care about the environment and the UN’s collective goals.
Trump rattled off anecdotes about how climate change advocates “want to kill all the cows” and how the crisis itself is the “greatest con job.” But, at the same conference, China outlined a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions for the first time, rather than simply reducing growth. Although the scale of their proposal was underwhelming, it was still a step above the United States.
On this global stage at this symbolically critical event for international peace, the United States made a terrible impression.
However, the two nations have totally different stakes in developing their public images. Unlike China, the United States is not racially homogeneous nor an authoritative society.
Because of its authoritarian control of the media and racial homogeneity, a few pleasant foreign policy moves can dictate China’s public image positively. Unlike in the United States, where citizens often question the legitimacy of the government. China can pledge many initiatives on a global stage without being checked by its own population. There aren’t robust numbers of media personalities harshly criticizing the government or the entire citizenry flooding social media with negative domestic political content.
The way to remedy America’s image would then be to unify the immeasurably wide partisan divide and forefront a globalist stance.
However, unity is a fanciful ideal, at least for the United States at this point. Although it would be wonderful to have a harmonious government that doesn’t shut down, unity disregards the whole concept of our nation.
America’s charm is its diversity—regionalism should lead to specialization and, in turn, a creative, entrepreneurial, and strengthened nation.
If the United States is committed to gaining a competitive edge on influencing the rest of the world, then it needs to commit to compromising internally.
At the moment, there seems to be a greater concern for an internal restructuring of the nation and reorganizing funds in an attempt to boost our economy. Yet, to maintain America’s symbolic presence as the great global power, this trade-off must be made.
Addison:
Nicholas Burns emphasized that pulling government research funding poses an alarming threat to our global standing. The Trump administration terminated over 4,000 grants from more than 600 colleges and universities as of July, for a total of roughly $3.2 billion. This research, which President Trump and his allies blithely dismiss as wasteful, has proven to be imperative to social, economic, and scientific progress. These investments are critical not just to improving public health but to the basic function of higher education–financing key university services and equipping students with the skills necessary to join a rapidly-modernizing workforce.
Similarly troubling are increasingly-tenuous U.S. foreign relations. Imposing tariffs as an attempted blanket solution to all diplomatic issues is not only ineffective but a direct threat to global partnerships. The United States relies on alliances to ensure protection, information sharing, and the acquisition of weapons, yet current trade policy doesn’t distinguish between friend and foe. Imposing levies on NATO allies who host hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops and contribute significantly to GDP each year, weakens the alliance’s collective economic muscle and raises questions as to whether the United States can be trusted as a mediator of international affairs.
Burns warns that we must combat these issues or else China will supersede us in international politics. After all, they have already overtaken us in the production of Ph.D. graduates and widely-cited papers. President Xi Jinping is forging better relationships with India and Iran and strengthening a partnership with Russia. He’ll likely also seize on Trump’s disdain for the United Nations to further assert his agenda. But China’s rise seems incidental to the looming collapse of American exceptionalism.
For better or worse, most Americans are raised to espouse the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. On national holidays, we express gratitude for living in a safe country where we are free to explore new ideas and express ourselves however we want.
Compelled by some combination of our revolutionary origin, frontier spirit, and intricate cultural makeup, our shared identity has progressed beyond nationalism: we see ourselves not only as superior to other countries but also uniquely obligated to promote our values worldwide. From the earliest settlement of New England, we were meant to be “a city upon a hill” or a model for productive democracy.
Of course, this arrogant doctrine has flaws, having enabled countless injustices over the course of American history. But even the most jaded citizens can admit that they derive some inspiration from living in a supposed beacon of ambition and cooperation. While certainly not perfect, this ideology has kept the United States on the cutting edge of technology, medicine, engineering, the arts, entrepreneurship, and international leadership for centuries. It has given countless Americans a sense of obligation to promote morality, relentlessly pursue knowledge, and achieve success on a world stage.
Despite its “America First” label, the Trump administration’s recent agenda is diametrically opposed to this sentiment. Without reinforcing our education system, we will not send the same intelligent, engaged citizenry out into the world. We will certainly not be leaders in medicine and technology, to the detriment of our economic and physical well-being. No longer a trustworthy global companion, we will be left without allies’ military protection and the economic boost of international trade.
Call me dramatic, but it is alarmingly easy to connect subjects of recent attacks by the president and the ideals that American innovation and collaboration have relied on for centuries. Dismantling education and research means less intellectual advancement, and severing cross-national bonds harms our reputation as a stalwart of international diplomacy. If we continue to jeopardize our competitive edge and global influence, we won’t just lose to China—we’ll lose our entire identity as a nation and the aspirations of generations to come.
Correction (10/6/2025 at 2:17 p.m): The article was corrected from a previous version which designated Japan and South Korea as members of NATO.
