America's anxiety is becoming impossible to hide.
For years now, Washington has swung its China policy from "engagement" to "containment," throwing everything at Beijing short of open conflict. But China hasn't been contained at all. Instead, it's racing ahead in renewable energy, manufacturing, and trade—often leaving the US trailing in its wake. This widening gap between American expectations and reality has plunged the country into something deeper than mere frustration: it's a crisis of confidence.
Feith's article—a mirror to America's anxieties
The Washington Post recently ran a piece by David Feith, a scholar at the Hudson Institute, titled "America Must Regain Confidence to Compete with China." What's revealing about this article isn't what it says about China—it's what it says about America. After years of beating the drum about the "China threat," it turns out the real problem troubling America might not be Beijing at all. It's Washington itself.
Feith doesn't mince words. He argues that decades of policy blunders have shattered public trust in government. The Iraq War debacle. The 2008 financial crisis. De-industrialization that gutted the heartland. A pandemic response that became a national embarrassment. These failures haven't just disappointed Americans—they've accumulated into institutional exhaustion. Today's America doubts both its own capabilities and its moral authority, with growing numbers of citizens actively opposing US power projection abroad.
When Doubt Becomes Policy
This atmosphere of "doubt and division," as Feith calls it, makes it nearly impossible for America to build consensus around shared objectives. It weakens the country's ability to craft long-term strategies or sustain the resource commitments needed to execute them. Put simply: America wants to compete with China, but it lacks the internal confidence and cohesion to do so effectively.
This diagnosis aligns perfectly with recent political reality. Both Trump and Biden have found common ground on taking a hard line toward China—perhaps the only issue the two parties agree on. Yet their domestic policy divisions have never been sharper. Public discontent gets channeled into external anxiety, making policy increasingly emotional, reactive, and short-sighted.
Feith identifies what he calls "directionless persistence" in America's recent China policy: Washington claims it wants to contain China, yet it can't break free from Chinese markets and supply chains. This fundamental contradiction has made US strategy increasingly reactive rather than proactive.
Take Trump's approach. After taking office, his administration slapped tough trade measures on China, trying to force supply chains back to American soil. The result? Soaring costs, worsening inflation, and cratering business confidence. Even after returning to the White House, Trump kept up the bombast, threatening 100% tariffs on Chinese goods and accusing Beijing of "not buying American soybeans." Then Treasury officials quietly walked it back: "The 100% tariff does not have to happen." This perfectly captures current US policy—lots of noise, little action, riddled with contradictions.
The Leverage That Wasn't There
Bloomberg's analysis cuts even deeper: Trump simply doesn't have the leverage to back up his threats. He overestimated America's trade influence while badly underestimating China's capacity to absorb pressure. Chinese companies have already pivoted their export destinations. Washington's "punishments" increasingly look toothless.
The root cause of this policy whiplash is simple: America views competition as a zero-sum game while ignoring that the global economy is deeply integrated. Sanctions and high tariffs might play well to domestic political audiences, but they do almost nothing to revitalize industry or enhance competitiveness.
Feith argues that if America truly wants to compete with China, it needs to start with internal reform. That means rebuilding industrial capacity, loosening regulations that stifle technological innovation, and encouraging a new generation of entrepreneurs to invest in renewable energy, manufacturing, and foundational technologies.
He points to patriotic entrepreneurs and investors now trying to rebuild domestic supply chains in defense, energy, and manufacturing—a commendable direction. But if the financial sector, media, and academia remain trapped in ideological warfare, the innovation ecosystem can't genuinely recover.
Strategy Versus Speculation
This call for reform reflects a harsh reality: America's real problem isn't a lack of competitors—it's a lack of long-term strategic thinking. China's development model emphasizes infrastructure and manufacturing capacity. America has leaned too heavily on capital and financial markets. When these two paths diverged, Washington suddenly realized that "market self-correction" isn't the universal solution it was promised to be.
The International Energy Agency's latest report shows that US investment in renewable energy still lags behind both China and the EU. Without policy coherence, America's industrial advantages will continue to erode.
Against this backdrop, Feith's call for America to "regain confidence" isn't about encouraging populist chest-thumping. It's about recovering rational self-affirmation: acknowledging mistakes, correcting course, and rebuilding capabilities.
That's the prerequisite for real competition. Because a nation without confidence will only be driven by anxiety. And policies driven by anxiety will only make the problems worse.
Deep Throat
** The blog article is the sole responsibility of the author and does not represent the position of our company. **
