Sinica Podcast: Daniel Kurtz-Phelan on Shifting Views of China
Date: October 30, 2025
Host: Kaiser Kuo
Guest: Daniel Kurtz-Phelan, Editor of Foreign Affairs

Episode Overview

This episode features an in-depth conversation between host Kaiser Kuo and Daniel Kurtz-Phelan, the editor of Foreign Affairs magazine. They discuss the evolving American discourse on China, editorial choices shaping public debate, the challenge of representing authentic Chinese voices, and whether or not current U.S.-China tensions echo the Cold War. The conversation offers rare insight into how one of America's most influential foreign policy journals is reacting to—and helping to shape—the discourse around China during a period marked by geopolitical tension, ideological disagreements, and shifting "vibes" in Washington and beyond.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Editorial Shifts at Foreign Affairs

Daniel’s Tenure and the China Turning Point

• Daniel describes joining Foreign Affairs amid critical shifts in U.S. views toward China, first as executive editor (2017), then as editor-in-chief (2021).
• He notes profound changes—from the era of “China’s peaceful rise” and economic engagement to rising competition and eventual confrontation.
• Daniel references his experience as a young editor during the Iraq War, observing how the magazine both drives and reflects policy debates.

"That kind of post-Cold War consensus was blown up by China and the United States, that kind of end of history moment." (B, 06:38)

Mission: Driving vs. Reflecting Debate

• Foreign Affairs seeks to simultaneously “drive” and “reflect” the crucial policy conversations of the day.
• Intensive editorial effort is made to ensure a wide range of perspectives—from policymakers, academics, journalists, Chinese dissidents, and more—contribute substantively.
• Editorial choices consciously strive to challenge assumptions and bring overlooked issues to the fore.

"By bringing in that full range of voices and pressing them to address questions seriously, that's going to help everyone get to a better answer." (B, 10:35)

2. The “China Debate” – Then and Now

Historic Parallels: The “Who Lost China” Debate

• Daniel draws historical analogy to post-WWII, when the U.S. tried and failed to shape China’s fate, leading to poisonous domestic political debates (McCarthy era, Vietnam escalation).
• He shares insights from his book on George Marshall’s failed mission to mediate China’s civil war (1945–47).

"Marshall became the focus of the 'Who lost China' debate. This notion that it was because of treason or weakness, or some kind of deception, that a slew of American officials allowed the Communists to win." (B, 13:45)

Is This Another Cold War?

• Daniel is cautious with Cold War analogies but acknowledges meaningful echoes, referencing his mentor John Lewis Gaddis’s work.

"This is not a Cold War in the capital C, capital W sense that the US-Soviet one was. But there are enough parallels that it's worth trying to kind of look for those echoes." (B, 12:46)

3. China’s Outsized Place in Today’s Foreign Policy Conversation

Is Foreign Affairs More China-Focused Than Ever?

• Kaiser observes that almost every issue connects back to China—whether climate, tech, or geopolitics elsewhere (Middle East, Global South, Russia).
• Daniel confirms there’s been an “uptick” in China coverage, reflective both of his personal interests and broader policy preoccupations.

"There's just so much...you could go down any one of the functional areas and we could run five times as much as we do." (B, 18:38)

Notable and Impactful China Pieces

• Daniel references influential essays that shaped debate:
  • Campbell & Ratner's "The China Opening" (2018) – sparked ongoing debates about the end of engagement
  • Fareed Zakaria’s “The New China Scare” – criticized the new hawkish consensus
  • Jessica Chen Weiss’ “Making the World Safe for Autocracy” and “The China Trap” – sharp critiques from a non-hawk perspective
  • Pottinger & Gallagher’s “No Substitute for Victory” – argued for a hardline, regime-weakening approach
  • Series of responses and debates in the magazine, illustrating the health of public intellectual discourse.

"To have Matt Pottinger, Jim Steinberg, and Jessica Chen Weiss arguing about ultimate objectives of our China strategy in a substantive and good faith way is, I think, the kind of public discourse that we would ideally have." (B, 24:07)

4. The Challenge of Authentic Chinese Voices

Scarcity and Constraints

• Both Kaiser and Daniel discuss the difficulty of securing truly independent perspectives from within China—most contributors are from a small pool of “allowed” insiders.
• Political constraints, language barriers, and risk to Chinese thinkers make this an enduring challenge.

"It's become much harder for even people with some stature in China who are not dissenters from the leadership line to say anything particularly substantive in our pages." (B, 26:29)

How Is Foreign Affairs Perceived in China?

• While once seen as a U.S. government mouthpiece, Foreign Affairs is now viewed more sophisticatedly by Chinese officials as influential but independent.
• Daniel recounts anecdotes of Chinese leaders referencing FA pieces in high-level meetings, underscoring the magazine's influence.

"Chinese leadership reads Foreign Affairs pretty closely...they'll ask about a piece in Foreign Affairs—that's anecdotal but a clear sign of that." (B, 27:46)

5. The “Vibe Shift” in the U.S. China Debate

Consensus Cracking, Hawks on the Ropes?

• Kaiser suggests the previously dominant Washington consensus on China is weakening; multiple U.S. political camps now view China through their own prisms (leftist “abundance” movement, “China envy” in tech, MAGA admiration for "ethnostate" aspects).
• Daniel concurs that the bipartisan “hard line on China” is thinner than often believed; even at moments of peak hawkishness, consensus was fragile.

"It became a throwaway line...the only bipartisan issue in Washington—hardline on China. But...that consensus is much thinner than people think." (B, 34:02)

Cultivating Contrarian and Diverse Voices

• Daniel confirms a deliberate editorial strategy to seek out and publish dissenting, heterodox, and non-consensus perspectives, sometimes “pushing at” prevailing orthodoxy from multiple directions.
• Examples: Dan Wang on Chinese tech, Lizzi Lee, David Kang & Zenobia Chan, and John Zinn challenging entrenched views on Xi Jinping.

"We kind of try to push at that consensus, sometimes successfully, sometimes less so, from lots of different perspectives." (B, 36:30)

6. Editorial Vision: Looking Forward

Anticipating Next Debates vs. Urgent Issues

• Daniel acknowledges the need to balance rapid response to current crises (Middle East, Latin America, etc.) with anticipating where the big debates on U.S. power, identity, and the global order are headed.
• He warns against reducing every issue to a U.S.–China binary while noting China's role as subtext in many evolving global dynamics.

"Part of the challenge is not to become so fixated on the U.S.–China dynamic that we fail to look at what's happening." (B, 41:00)

Diversity of Perspectives

• Editorial effort is underway to bring in more Global South and non-Western voices—although “feature, not a bug,” that U.S. policy debate is central to Foreign Affairs' identity.

"That can also lead you to a misperceived reality...looking for questions we think might be important in several months or several years." (B, 43:12)

7. Recommendations and Looking Ahead

Editorial Team

• Daniel thanks the unseen (and often young) editorial staff behind Foreign Affairs for their vital role in shaping content and discourse.

"That takes a ton of work from just the editors on our team, some of whom are very experienced, some of whom are 24-year-olds who just spent a year in Beijing doing the Schwarzman Scholarship..." (B, 54:15)

Recommended Books and Publications

• Joseph Torigian’s By Father
• Forthcoming The Coming Storm by Odd Arne Westad
• Christopher Clark’s The Sleepwalkers
• C.V. Wedgwood’s The Spoils of Time and The Thirty Years War
• Equator (equator.org) – new publication prioritizing Global South/Non-Western voices
• The Rise of the Meritocracy by Michael Young
• India issue of Garret magazine

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Magazine’s Influence:

  "The number of times when a senior U.S. official or former official is in a meeting with very, very senior Chinese leaders and they'll ask about a piece in Foreign Affairs...that's a clear sign of that." (B, 27:46)

• On Consensus and Debate:

  "To have Matt Pottinger and Jim Steinberg and Jessica Chen Weiss arguing about ultimate objectives of our China strategy in a substantive and good faith way is, I think, the kind of public discourse that we would ideally have." (B, 24:09)

• On History and Policy:

  "When you look back at the kind of post-1949 history, the incredibly harmful effects of the cutoff of conversations between Americans and, you know, Chinese scholars...just how damaging that was to the American ability to make policy in smart ways." (B, 50:52)

• On the Dangers of Binary Thinking:

  "It's easy to make every piece, in some ways, about U.S.-China competition...But part of the challenge is not to become so fixated on the U.S.-China dynamic that we fail to look at what's happening." (B, 40:17)

• On Pursuing Nuance:

  "There's just much more nuance to that debate now. And so that's part of what's changed. And in some ways, the strangeness of the Trump China policy has...opened the Overton window on discussions on China." (B, 51:52)

Important Timestamps

• [04:43] Daniel’s editorial approach and Foreign Affairs’ mission
• [06:15] Lessons from George Marshall’s failed mission to China
• [12:42] Cold War analogies and distinctions in today’s US-China relationship
• [18:02] Rise in China-related content at Foreign Affairs
• [20:10] Recap of influential Foreign Affairs essays on China
• [25:26] The scarcity of authentic voices from inside China
• [29:42] How Foreign Affairs is seen by Chinese leadership
• [34:02] The cracks in the U.S. “consensus” on China
• [40:17] The challenge of not reducing every global issue to a US-China binary
• [43:12] Editorial strategies for diversifying perspectives
• [54:15] Recognition of the Foreign Affairs editorial team
• [55:01] Book and publication recommendations

Flow and Tone

The conversation is nuanced, collegial, and peppered with inside references and wry humor. Both Kaiser and Daniel demonstrate deep familiarity with both intellectual debate and the realpolitik of China policy discussion, frequently referencing academic works, inside-the-Beltway arguments, historical analogies, and the constant challenge of keeping discourse both rigorous and open-minded. The tone balances earnestness about the gravity of U.S.-China relations with witty asides and an admiration for complexity over simple narratives.

For Listeners Who Haven’t Tuned In

This episode offers a rare look behind the scenes of how Foreign Affairs magazine makes editorial decisions in one of the most contested geopolitical discourses of our time. You’ll come away with a deeper understanding of:

• The evolution of American thinking about China—historically and today
• The power and peril of historical analogies (Cold War, Marshall Mission, late Qing, etc)
• The difficulties and importance of fostering authentic, diverse voices—especially from China and the Global South—in an era of polarization and censorship
• How even the most “establishment” voices in foreign policy are engaged in constant, sometimes chaotic, self-scrutiny and debate
• A reading list to deepen your own engagement with global affairs

Whether a policy wonk, China watcher, or interested citizen, you’ll find valuable context and smart introspection in this episode.