I think their idea is that there will be super cheap insurance for catastrophic stuff, and everything else is just paid out of pocket. I doubt they can make that work though.

Can the Republicans all get behind this? I can imagine some will say it's socialism!

A reason I say that I'd be surprised if this went anywhere is that it's hard to imagine the Republicans unifying around any particular idea.

What article? I didn't write an article. Did you think I was the author of the article?

This is not my field at all, and you may or may not care, but I'm going to write something longer on this. Very hard to discuss it in short posts.

(I don't know what the "doctor" refers to -- I am not a doctor in any sense of the word!)

The 1950s is not arbitrary though. This is the era that ultraconservatives like Nikki Haley's son, who was the basis for what I originally wrote, often want to go back to.

As for the 1970s, that's when I grew up, and I don't think people at the time felt very prosperous (stagflation, etc.).

I have lots of complaints about what is going on today. I just don't think people should be nostalgic for the 1950s (or some other era), which were terrible in many ways. I'm surprised that this is controversial here on Bluesky! (I can imagine other places where it would be though.)

And closer by, S Korea and Taiwan had recently industrialized and then liberalized. It felt like a natural progression.

A lot of the critiques of liberalization with China almost always miss 1) What they would've done instead, 2) That China is it own country with power and agency and ability to chose its own direction, and China chose illiberalism, 3) China's scale and governance model always made it an awkward fit

OTOH, if that group had been focusing all their attention on China, think about what a mess they might have made of things!

I think there was an internal split among the American primacists between focusing on China and focusing on the Middle East (Saddam & Iran). And that split (and subsequently the inherent stickiness of the Middle East) has defined US foreign policy since then.

Feigenbaum makes it sound like a push on China from the hawks was coming, but who knows how that would have played out.

(Not that I think pressing harder would have been effective, especially on democracy)

I would say they pressed China half-heartedly, but they also needed China's non-objection to War on Terror stuff so China knew it didn't have to take the pressing seriously.

But, famously, he was influenced by those around him. And if you look at the link with the Feigenbaum quote, it's interesting to think about where the China hawks might have pushed him. Could have been confrontational, although about what exactly is hard to say.

Ha, ok, I'm on board then!

I agree with your first point.

Can you elaborate on your last point?

Ha, yes.