In a sense that’s true for any country, though. The only differences are (1) how often the policy changes and (2) by how much. US used to have a 4-year cycle and much less variance in the policies and so it made some sense to get into long-term agreements. Even in the last 8 years, agreements reached by Trump were continued by Biden (e.g. NAFTA). Now though the cycle is like 4 days and the policy swings are 180°, so it only makes sense to enter into extremely short-term, transactional agreements, or if you have no other choice (like Ukraine).
That’s demonstrably false. Take China as an example where there is a stable political system, a single party in charge, and decisions are made across decades.
We can agree that China is a more stable partner than the US. My point is that party leadership can also change there, leading to policy changes - it just doesn’t happen as often and there’s usually no dramatic swings when it does. It’s a scale, not a binary thing.
That’s the whole point though, it’s the erratic swings in policy that make the US impossible to work with. China doesn’t change policy on whim, and it acts rationally. This makes it possible to make long term plans with China and have confidence that China will commit to these plans. The same cannot be said about the US where policy is volatile and unpredictable.
I’d argue that goes for any US president. Even if they’re completely genuine, everything can change on a dime when the next admin comes into power.
In a sense that’s true for any country, though. The only differences are (1) how often the policy changes and (2) by how much. US used to have a 4-year cycle and much less variance in the policies and so it made some sense to get into long-term agreements. Even in the last 8 years, agreements reached by Trump were continued by Biden (e.g. NAFTA). Now though the cycle is like 4 days and the policy swings are 180°, so it only makes sense to enter into extremely short-term, transactional agreements, or if you have no other choice (like Ukraine).
That’s demonstrably false. Take China as an example where there is a stable political system, a single party in charge, and decisions are made across decades.
We can agree that China is a more stable partner than the US. My point is that party leadership can also change there, leading to policy changes - it just doesn’t happen as often and there’s usually no dramatic swings when it does. It’s a scale, not a binary thing.
That’s the whole point though, it’s the erratic swings in policy that make the US impossible to work with. China doesn’t change policy on whim, and it acts rationally. This makes it possible to make long term plans with China and have confidence that China will commit to these plans. The same cannot be said about the US where policy is volatile and unpredictable.