Sinica Podcast Episode Summary

Episode: Michael Brenes and Van Jackson on Why U.S.-China Great-Power Competition Threatens Peace and Weakens Democracy
Host: Kaiser Kuo
Guests: Michael Brenes (Yale University), Van Jackson (Victoria University of Wellington)
Date: January 2, 2026

Episode Overview

This episode explores the central thesis of the new book, The Rivalry: How Great Power Competition Threatens Peace and Weakens Democracy, authored by Michael Brenes and Van Jackson. Host Kaiser Kuo guides a discussion that interrogates the harms caused by the US-China rivalry frame—both to American democracy and global peace—and challenges the conventional wisdom that great power competition is necessary or beneficial. The conversation traverses the book’s genesis, the limitations of Cold War analogies, consequences of securitization, and what a different US-China grand strategy could (and should) look like.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Genesis of the Book and Collaborative Approach

• Book Origins:
  • Sparked by mutual concern over the Biden administration’s embrace of Cold War liberalism and great power competition framing (“link China to domestic prosperity” as done with the Soviet Union; [06:10]).
  • Initial collaboration began after Van Jackson praised Brenes’s earlier work critiquing Cold War liberalism, followed by a “mini-viral” Foreign Affairs essay in summer 2022 ([07:27]).
• Interdisciplinary Complementarity:
  • Van Jackson: International Relations (IR), security, policy practitioner, East Asia/Korea expertise.
  • Michael Brenes: Cold War historian, deep knowledge of military Keynesianism and US grand strategy.
  • This blend of perspectives enabled a uniquely thorough and critical lens ([11:26]).

2. Challenges of the Left’s Perspective on China

• Complications for US Progressives:
  • China, “nominally socialist but deeply unequal,” is difficult for the American left to position clearly ([12:36]).
  • The need to move beyond simplistic “good guy/bad guy” or purely moralistic frames and adopt a more nuanced, political-economic and relational systems approach ([15:29]; [16:46]).
• Critique of Washington Discourse:
  • China-bashing often serves as a nationalist project in both parties—and especially so under the widely cited but misapplied Klein and Pettis framework, which the authors critique ([15:09]).

3. How ‘Great Power Competition’ Became Ideology

• Mechanisms Entrenching the Rivalry Frame:

  • Pivot from War on Terror, especially toward the end of the Obama administration ([22:30]).
  • “Great power competition” became an axiom in the DC policy world—first through Pentagon strategy docs, then as a bipartisan consensus ([22:04]; [25:02]).
  • Changing rhetoric was driven by a need to justify military budgets and stimulate “national security Keynesianism” (defense-driven economic stimulus; [03:02]); xenophobic elements helped mobilize support ([28:15]; [29:37]).

• Memorable Quote (Van Jackson):

  "The national security state decided early in the Obama administration to do the military buildup. But at some point you have to start letting that rhetoric shift toward things like great power competition, you know, and... you have to have the xenophobia kind of element at some point in order to mobilize resources to do military buildup." ([27:14])

4. Debunking Cold War Myths

• Historical Misrememberings with Contemporary Consequence:

  1. The “long peace” myth—obscures the extreme violence and proxy conflicts, especially in Asia ([28:55]).
  2. The ‘containment works’ narrative—the idea that US pressure brought down the Soviet Union ignores the primacy of internal Soviet dynamics and the dangerous mismatch when applied to China today ([30:47]).

• Quote (Michael Brenes):

  "The Cold War was incredibly violent ... to a lie the deaths of millions and say, well, this was simply a long peace ... discounts the violence inherent to great power competition." ([29:06])

5. Security Dilemma & the Boomerang of Threat Inflation

• Security Dilemma Framing:
  • Both US and China respond to perceived threats by augmenting security, which creates mutual escalation and worsens the situation—‘carrots, not sticks’ are what’s needed, but the rivalry framework does the opposite ([33:27]; [36:01]).
  • Example: US investments in nuclear modernization provoked Chinese nuclear expansion, which is then cited in DC as proof of malign intent ([36:01]).
• Quote (Van Jackson):

  "...by everybody just trying to secure themselves, they're making everybody worse off. Right. That's the dilemma." ([33:36])

6. Critique of National Security Keynesianism

• Key Criticism:
  • Defense spending is “really capital intensive,” poor at job creation, and creates a narrow set of beneficiaries rather than broad prosperity ([39:55]).
  • Government funding justified by rivalry politics could have greater economic and social returns if diverted to civilian R&D, infrastructure, climate, and public health.
• Quote (Kaiser Kuo):

  "It's like a shitty Keynesian multiplier effect." ([41:16])

• Political Viability:
  • While elite support for high defense spending remains, the US working class is increasingly skeptical; populist energy may exist for redirecting priorities, but elites in both major parties sustain the status quo ([39:55]; [41:16]).

7. Rivalry Weakens Democracy

• Consequence of Securitization:
  • Domestic dissent becomes suspect; anti-Asian hate and new McCarthyism spike (e.g., the China Initiative, TikTok moral panic; [03:02]; [42:53]).
• Feedback Loop:
  • Erosion of faith in democratic institutions—leads to search for external rivals; in turn, the rivalry frame further erodes democracy ([44:38]).
• Path Forward:
  • Frame domestic priorities outside of a “China threat” lens: focus on affordability, inclusion, and social welfare to build broad democratic coalitions ([44:38]; [47:24]).

8. Coalitions for Restraint and a New Narrative

• Building a Restraint-Oriented Coalition:

  • Debunking myth that foreign threats “bring us together”—data shows nationalism amid high inequity and polarization deepens division, not cohesion ([49:28]).
  • Need for cross-partisan, non-obvious alliances focused on material interests and less-militarized policy ([48:09]).

• The Master Narrative:

  • Reject “great power competition” as a guiding frame.

  • Jackson’s alternative: “Geopolitics of peace” anchored in a new US-China détente ([53:27]).

  • Three pillars:

    1. War prevention over preparation
    2. Security dilemma sensibility/strategic empathy
    3. Associative balancing—not zero-sum, but stability through “accommodation, restraint, and careful statecraft” ([55:29]).
    • Quote (Jackson):

      "...another tradition of power balancing that is what you would consider like antagonistic ... but there's another tradition ... which is associative balancing, which is about achieving a balance of power through accommodation and restraint ..." ([55:29])

• The Reality of Multipolarity:

  • Washington must accept multipolarity and abandon the pursuit of primacy ([57:17]).

9. Shifting Political Tides

• Recent Polling & Public Attitude:
  • Polls suggest the public is not as on-board with the “China is the enemy” chorus as elites are ([51:44]).
  • The idea of great power competition is largely “an elite project”—foreign to everyday Americans ([52:55]).
  • Notable recent public and elite rhetoric hints at a possible shift toward less animosity ([50:26]).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On security dilemma:
  "By everybody just trying to secure themselves, they're making everybody worse off. That's the dilemma."
  — Van Jackson ([33:36])

• On Cold War myth-making:
  "The Cold War was incredibly violent ... to a lie the deaths of millions and say, well, this was simply a long peace ... discounts the violence inherent to great power competition."
  — Michael Brenes ([29:06])

• On ‘bad guy logic’ of rivalry politics:
  "The way the bad guy valence stuff is just not especially productive. And if you understand IR... start thinking at like a systems level... solutions are not going to be nationalist in their orientation."
  — Van Jackson ([16:46])

• On National Security Keynesianism:
  "It's like a shitty Keynesian multiplier effect."
  — Kaiser Kuo ([41:16])

• On elite consensus:
  "Great power competition is such a, even that that phrase itself is so foreign to normal people."
  — Van Jackson ([52:56])

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [05:47] — Origins of the book and intellectual collaboration
• [13:53] — The American left’s China conundrum and being “anti-nationalist” in approach
• [22:04] — How “great power competition” became an ideology
• [28:50] — Cold War analogies: what policymakers get wrong
• [33:18] — Security dilemma and the boomerang of threat inflation
• [39:55] — National security Keynesianism critique, effects on jobs and democracy
• [44:38] — How rivalry undermines democracy; possibilities for reframing
• [48:09] — Building coalitions for restraint
• [53:27] — Proposing a “geopolitics of peace”—the alternative narrative
• [55:29] — Associative balancing explained

Recommendations (from the End of the Episode)

• Van Jackson:
  The Long 20th Century by Giovanni Arrighi — A world-systems analysis on how crises of capitalism fuel great power competition. ([58:27])

• Michael Brenes:
  The World of the Cold War, 1945-1991 by Vladislav Zubok — A broad survey emphasizing the economic drivers behind the Cold War. ([59:21])

• Kaiser Kuo:
  Pluribus (TV show, Apple TV+) — Explores the end of Western liberal individualism with deep political-philosophical subtext. ([60:45])

Concluding Tone & Takeaways

The episode is critical, rigorously analytical, and self-aware—challenging prevailing Washington wisdom but also pointing to ways restraint, systems-thinking, and a focus on shared material interests could yield a less militarized, more democratic, and more peaceful future. The personal tone and interplay between academic insight and real-world experience make for a rich, accessible conversation for any audience seeking to understand the dangers (and alternatives) to the “great power competition” frame.