Latest / 775 Alive / Ep057: US-China-Nevada

Transcript

Ep057: US-China-Nevada · 775 Alive

• 0:00
  Sherman Tylawsky: My dissertation topic is on the conservative movement here in America, political institutions and China and Taiwan policy. And it's a really good exploration of how the conservative movement has evolved since World War II. I'm really interested in this larger question of does ideology play as much of a role in shaping the conservative movement and China and Taiwan policy or is it more on institutions and what sort of institutional factors are driving this? I do believe that the Chinese are actively trying to not only spy on Americans, but to try and turn Americans and other individuals across the world to work for the Chinese state.
• 0:39
  Sherman Tylawsky: Crystal: Let's let China do the we'll be the head and they'll be the body. And I just think that we didn't expect that China would develop the manufacturing and then go right in and start stealing the IP to take the whole game.
• 0:56
  Sherman Tylawsky: They thought that China was going to play by the rules.
• 1:00
  Sherman Tylawsky: [upbeat music] Welcome to 775 Alive, a podcast focused on Nevada. From Vegas to Reno to Elko, we decode politics, economics, and critical global issues, offering common sense perspectives true to our Nevada roots. I'm Scott Gavorsky, PhD historian. And I'm Crystal Newton, business strategist. Let's get into it. [music ends]
• 1:21
  Scott: Well, welcome back here to 775 Alive. Crystal and I are joined today by Sherman Tylawsky. Thank
• 1:27
  you for joining us, Sherman. Sherman Tylawsky: Hello, Scott. Hello, Crystal. Thank you so much for having me on the podcast.
• 1:31
  you for joining us, Sherman. Sherman Tylawsky: Scott: And of course, Sherman candidate in that CD2 race up here in Northern Nevada just through the last primary season. He has done some interesting stuff with political activism. You're co-host of the Friends and Fellow Citizens podcast, which we'll talk about a little bit. Director of the George Washington Institute. And as we found out last week, Sherman and I are ending up sitting together on a Nevada Forum working group looking at some policy proposals for the next legislative session. So, [laughter] a lot of stuff to talk about here.
• 2:06
  you for joining us, Sherman. Sherman Tylawsky: Crystal: Yeah, he's amazing. He's got such a big portfolio that I almost forgot that he ran for CD2. I'm super focused on his US-China background and his knowledge on that. We rarely get to talk to anyone about this and China's kind of the big elephant in the the global room, isn't it?
• 2:24
  you for joining us, Sherman. Sherman Tylawsky: Sherman Tylawsky: I just want to first say thank you for having me to talk about all kinds of issues. I imagine we're'll be talking about, of course, US-China, about the campaign and other things in between, but I think it's going to be a really interesting conversation. I will want to add to that. So, it's hope hopefully not too long of a list of things I've got to do, but I'm also a doctoral candidate for the political science PhD program at the University of Alabama. And I'm currently writing my dissertation. And so, that's my main job, shall we say, and the other things are going to be coming into place pretty well and other things coming down the line, too. So, just want to add to that.
• 3:06
  you for joining us, Sherman. Sherman Tylawsky: to be interesting. I'm assuming the dissertation doesn't have much to do with China. Actually, it does. It actually does. Yes.
• 3:10
  you for joining us, Sherman. Sherman Tylawsky: Scott: Ok, cool.
• 3:17
  you for joining us, Sherman. Sherman Tylawsky: in in a direction that you want to go into, but I want to first say that my mother is an immigrant from Taiwan and that obviously is a big part of my life. I'm originally from the San Francisco Bay area, but my parents actually got married in Carson right here 30 years ago. Over 30 years ago, and they bought land down in Smith Valley. We're going to live here, but my mom got a job in California. And my dad, who is originally from New York, but is of Ukrainian descent or present day Ukraine I should say, and he is a sailor. So he was on ships for about 30 years, 30, 35 years.
• 3:57
  you for joining us, Sherman. Sherman Tylawsky: and you need to be close to the ocean. It's a bit of a drive from here to the San Francisco Bay area. So, my parents raised me over there and I grew up in San Francisco, a little bit in Santa Rosa as well up north. But I've always had an interest in not just international relations, but really where the United States is in the larger world and where we stand ideologically, where we stand geopolitically. I remember getting one of those newspaper subscriptions when I was in high school and reading about news about everything from New York City to what's happening in DC or what's happening in Montana, should we say. For the topic, it it's really a combination of a lot of things that I've been able to do and I'll be able to learn really because with every pursuit of knowledge and of scholarship, it's never just yourself.
• 4:54
  you for joining us, Sherman. Sherman Tylawsky: It's about the people who brought you along in the journey. But my dissertation topic is on the conservative movement here in America, political institutions and China and Taiwan policy. And it's a really good exploration of how the conservative movement has evolved since World War II. It's a really fascinating history and I don't think we would be in the state of politics now without a nod toward history and how the conservative movement for different reasons has become what it is. And I'm looking at through mainly in the institutional route. So think if you think Congress, the media, the presidency and I'm really interested in this larger question of does ideology play as much of a role in shaping the conservative movement and China and Taiwan policy or is it more on institutions and what sort of institutional factors are driving this.
• 5:57
  you for joining us, Sherman. Sherman Tylawsky: And my theory is that ideology used to be a very big deal particularly with the Cold War context.
• 6:03
  you for joining us, Sherman. Sherman Tylawsky: Do you think that the fight against communism? But I think after the Cold War ended in ' 91 formally, I think there's been a a bit of a change in how our politics are shaped. And I'm really theorizing that institutions are really shaping how the conservative movement has gone by. And of course, that has implications right on the the liberal movement. I think there's a very interesting element on that aspect, but that's really the big picture is really saying is ideology or our institutions defining how we're going in our politics today.
• 6:35
  you for joining us, Sherman. Sherman Tylawsky: Scott: Well, and that's sort of interesting because you know institutions are fairly a broad term and one of the things we're dealing with is sort of a set of institutions that you know 25, 30 years ago we weren't really thinking about and, one of the big ones that gets under Crystal's skin all the time, is sort of the Chinese spy industry, right, and using those, the honey trap like we saw with Eric Swalwell.
• 7:04
  Sherman Tylawsky: That's right. And I think you brought up a really good point, Scott, because I find that with, you know, with countries that have authoritarian regimes and they're always trying to, of course, undermine other countries, what they try to do is they they they their main goal is to divide, right? It's a kind of like a divide and conquer strategy. I know that there's people who might think that the Chinese are trying to achieve a certain kind of election result, let's just say, like potentially to support one candidate or another, and that might be the case. I think though a larger driving force is the divide element, because . . . and in in China you everything is about collectivism right it's about the state and everything's got to protect the state, every state state, state, state, everything is under the state. And so when you have that unitary system and it's countering this, this pluralistic democratic system you're going to see obviously very different ways of not just survival but of dominance right and trying to export your system to other parts of the world. So I I think on the Chinese spy element, just big picture, I do believe that the Chinese are actively trying to not only spy on Americans but to try and turn Americans and other individuals across the world to work for the Chinese state. And so that could be in the form of Confucius Institutes, which is kind of ironic because one of the things that the Chinese Communist Party has done is try to change history and to destroy history and destroy the values that Confucius, the great thinker, had. And so it's really kind of sick in a way to see the authoritarian state like that you weaponize a name like Confucius. But it's it's part of a larger network of whether it's trying to get America, get favorable deals with American companies, whether it's stealing technology particularly as we have Silicon Valley, not too far down I-80 and there's no question that given that there particularly, and I hate to go into the demographic part, but given that there's a lot of Americans of Asian descent there, there's no question that they're trying to potentially exploit that sense of identity and try to get people to turn against a lot of the foundations of what we stand for. So there's a lot of different complexities with this, but I think the main thing is . . . I do think China sees this as an ideological battle and sees that the United States can provide its that state with economic benefits and all that, but I don't think it really sees America the same way as say the Founders intended in terms of when they designed our government. Crystal: So, Sherman, you're describing a lot of things that I think they fall on a spectrum of they they go from this is self-preservation of a nation and trying to do the best thing for your people to being almost toxic in the world and that you're taking at all consequence and it really doesn't matter what the outcomes are and it becomes a little bit of a toxic thing in the global community. How do you, I mean, obviously China has a right to defend itself and try to make the best deal for its people and you've studied this really deeply and I wonder what your 30,000 foot view on this is. Is this China just trying to make the best deal for their people or is this more of a deliberate plan to position themselves as a global leader?
• 10:44
  Sherman Tylawsky: Sherman Tylawsky: Well, I would say difference between the Chinese government and the Chinese people, because I don't believe that the Chinese government is legitimately elected. They don't have competitive elections. They didn't put . . .
• 11:01
  Sherman Tylawsky: It's not like when we talk about elections here in Nevada that we have primaries and then you know people go to town halls and there's a real clash on ideas or we have debates on on Fox News or CNN.
• 11:15
  Sherman Tylawsky: They don't have any of those things there. It's all from the same rotten tree.
• 11:20
  Sherman Tylawsky: And so I . . . the thing there's . . . so I want to make that distinction clear which is it's unfortunate that in a place like China where there's so much history and there's so much culture there that like I said earlier that that history is trying to is being erased and certainly even recent history like Tiananmen. We all know what happened in Tiananmen but the Chinese government can't let that narrative spread across that that country. So there's a lot at stake here really when you have a people that really didn't have much of a choice. Now, some of the older generations, I'm sure recall those those times in the early days of Mao and all cuz Mao dies in 1976, but you still have a generation that has witnessed a number of things that, notably COVID, and there's certainly, I think, always a case to say that a state has the right to defend itself. However, when you have this large gap between the state and the people in terms of legitimacy, I think that's where I'd say that the interests of the state are not resonating with what are, what is really good for the people.
• 12:30
  Sherman Tylawsky: Scott: Can we expand on connection on that ideology side with this because one of the sort of western stereotypes that goes back to the 70s, 1970s, 1980s about China is that the Chinese really are Chinese first and communist second. That despite for all the rhetoric they're playing sort of a different game and this is, for instance, what allows talking about the conservative movement and I'm not sure if you're dating one of the shifts But of course, you know, the . . . only Nixon can go to China, right? It requires the ultimate cold warrior to open up the door to China as a counterweight to the Soviet Union. But there's also what happens in the late '70s where China gets involved in a war with Vietnam, which is just 5 years removed from the collapse of South Vietnam, a unified communist country. And this sends huge shock waves particularly through the political and academic left in the west because one of their theories is, of course, communist countries don't go to war against each other, right? And this is what leads to Benedict Anderson's "Imagined Communities" and sort of all that strand of thought where these disillusioned leftists now have to deal with a China that seems to be operating very much like what they consider a right-wing nationalist.
• 13:50
  Sherman Tylawsky: Do you think China is actually forging a separate ideology from traditional communism that we saw during the Cold War or is, you know, now we're seeing an effort to sort of revivalize that sort of memory of Mao, right, and Zhou Enlai and these others.
• 14:05
  Sherman Tylawsky: Sherman Tylawsky: That's a great question, Scott. It's . . . I'll start with a quote I'll say in Mandarin I'll translate which is [Mandarin phrase], which means "you cannot have two tigers on the same mountain." And I think that says a lot about where the Chinese stand on their position. Not to mention that their own name is Zhongguo. If you look at the character of zhong it actually is basically like a rectangular box and there's a vertical line that goes through it and so it means central and then guo is kingdom. So they see themselves as the Central Kingdom literally. And so I think that the the Chinese are in some ways clever in terms of their culture because I don't think they try to hide it. I think we in the West might try and think, oh, they're probably trying to you play a game or something. I actually think they're pretty direct. They just . . . it's just the way that I think we've interpreted the Chinese government and how they do things. We think that they're just going to be siding eventually with some element of democracy, right? Or some element of, you know, economic liberalism. And I don't find that's the case. I find that the Chinese can, certainly can operate on two sides where they can say the right things in public, but genuinely, I don't think they see the United States as a good model for how to rule over a people. And I say rule over because I don't think they're governing. I think they're ruling over the Chinese population. And so, on the ideology part, and that's really interesting, Scott, because especially with each of these Chinese leaders, cuz you have, you know, Deng Xiaoping, right, who is trying to modernize China in the '80s and trying to get it to a different spot in terms of trying to become more advanced. I think Xi Jinping is a really interesting case. I'm not an expert on Xi Jinping or about the Chinese leaders, but what I can say it does seem like the issue of Taiwan is always that it's always that unattainable goal of every Chinese leader since '49, when the Chinese Civil War ends when you have the Kuomintang could go to across to Taiwan to establish that country there. Now, there's always been a government there in some form, but there's always been the struggle of a Chinese leader to make that impression, make that legacy in the form of the Chinese Communist Party. And of course, I don't think having the term communist in the name is a surprise because I do believe that that's from the very beginnings in back in the '20s when the party was founded. I think they've always operated on this element of Marxism, Leninism. And I think that with Xi Jinping, really with any subsequent leader, there's always going to be a question of how does that Chinese leader as who probably sees himself as an emperor more than the president, how does that leader make his name for the party, right? And how does that, how does he try to advance the party to a different level? And I imagine that Taiwan is constantly in Xiaoping's mind and every Chinese leader's mind as you know that moment where they can, okay, they can kind of reclaim what the CCP stands for in that sense. Crystal: I want to talk about Taiwan, but I think first I want to juxtapose the US and China, where on one hand you have the US that has built a system that legally believes in its individual citizen to take responsibility for their life to determine where they're going to go and what they're going to do. Whereas China is just makes the assumption that people can't make the best decision for themselves and they'll go ahead and make that for them.
• 18:02
  Sherman Tylawsky: Now, what's interesting to me is how does Taiwan feel about all this? And more importantly, how did a Taiwan emerge out of that Chinese ideology with a freedom and democratic ideology? How did that happen?
• 18:15
  Sherman Tylawsky: Sherman Tylawsky: Well, I will say that one of the particularly Sun Yat-sen, so Sun Yat-sen is one of the early leaders of Taiwan. He was actually inspired by the US and by George Washington and about American values because he went, my understanding is that he went through some schooling with under the US system. So that I think is interesting. I'm not an expert on Son Yat-sen himself but I remember learning about that. I believe there's a couple things and relating to the dissertation topic. It's a really fascinating history because we often think that the contemporary US-Taiwan relationship starts in 1979 because that's when the Taiwan Relations Act is established and that formally recognizes, and of course recognizes that the US and Taiwan do not have formal diplomatic relations where the US is going to have formal relations with China and so it's a, it's a . . . but there is that contingent, right, of strategic ambiguity where the US would defend Taiwan from any sort of attack on it. But the relationship really solidifies after World War II because the conservatives are looking for this opening. This part of it, it is politics cuz of course everything is politics nowadays.
• 19:39
  Sherman Tylawsky: But Truman and the Democrats are running the show on foreign policy on the Marshall Plan, right? They're trying to contain communism. That is the name of the game. But the conservatives are struggling to find that opening. And what they find is they find Asia is that opening where they criticize the the Truman administration for kind of if you think about it like a leaky bucket, right? They're kind of saying you're addressing this hole of trying to prevent communism from spreading, but you're not doing that in Asia. And so, for initially, it started off as just simply an opening for conservatives who have an interest in foreign policy and have some internationalist leanings. And that solidifies as part of the movement because you're having a Senate majority leader and his name was, it was let's see . . . William Knowland. There we go. Senator Knowland from California of all places. He is one of the big champions of supporting Taiwan and keeping China out of the United Nations. And so this really starts to solidify as part of the official relationship before '79, before the '70s. And then even after, even though the US does not have formal relations with Taiwan, you still have this pipeline of relationships and of trips to Taiwan from members of Congress that has long been established for all these decades. And I think it's that that element, there where Taiwan did undergo some really crazy things happening of martial law, really occurred until the 80s. That's my recollections and to go from that part of it was the economic side of things. The economy started to modernize the US certainly were supporting Taiwan militarily speaking, but to see this rapid transformation for Taiwan to holding a democratic election in 1996 for president, this I think is a culmination of I would say the United States having that effect, but also the fact that it's probably some of the founding there within Taiwan to know that there is that common heritage of Chinese heritage, but it is a different place. It is a different system and it does not subscribe to what the Chinese Communist Party imposes on its people.
• 22:05
  Sherman Tylawsky: Crystal: Just a quick question, follow-up, Sherman. My guess, and I know nothing about this subject, is there was some American investment in Taiwan that helped tip them over the edge. Is that right? Sherman Tylawsky: That's my recollection. Yes. So there's been a lot I mean there's the American Institute in Taiwan which is kind of our unofficial embassy there. But there's also US-Taiwan Business Council. So I just to, say, just going back to institutions, there's also the institutions that are supporting those efforts there. So the investments in Taiwan and of course Taiwan investments here in the US.
• 22:39
  Sherman Tylawsky: Crystal: I just want to give credit to my business people because we can really tip the scale when it comes to these things.
• 22:50
  Sherman Tylawsky: Scott: Well, and this . . . this brings up something that's sort of interesting because you already mentioned, ironicly people, tend to forget that the US almost has a special relationship with China that goes back to the beginning of the republic under the United States. I mean American foreign shipping, foreign exports are curtailed after the Revolution because they no longer have access to French ports and English ports and all this other stuff. And very quickly, we see New England merchants engaging in the China trade. So, by the 1820s and 1830s, even though China is very much isolated, American hulls are carrying a lot of the goods coming back out of China. Of course, by the time we get to the 1880s, 1890s, it's the United States that's propounding the Open Door Policy in China. That they're not going to let China be, colonized by the European powers, right, for some definitions of colonialism.
• 23:50
  Sherman Tylawsky: But then talk about Sun Yat-sen. I mean, Lady Chiang Kai-shek, Lady Kai-shek is actually educated at Harvard. It has very close relationships with the political elite in the United States in the '30s. This is one of the reasons they're so supported against Japan. But that '49 issue is illustrative, because I think there's an interesting parallel. Crystal brought up business, which is part of it. But one of the things that happens is when the the communists conquer China in '49, the repercussions isn't just against the Truman administration for not being strong enough against the communists, but it really sparks a huge backlash against the CIA and the State Department that doesn't see this coming, right? And this feeds directly into the Red Scare that there's communists in the State Department. It shades over into the Lavender Scare where they're looking for homosexuals in the State Department and the CIA and under the justification they're falling victims to Chinese spy rackets. But even today I think conservatives have a tendency that when something seems to be going wrong with China policy, a lot of their targeting seems to be geared towards American institutions. I mean, one could argue even Trump's argument about data centers and chip manufacturing is an example of this. China's getting an upper hand and it's because we haven't done enough, right? We've engaged in globalization so we need to do more here against it. Is that factoring into some of this? Cuz I think there's an interesting point where China almost serves as sort of not, not a boogeyman, but an example of where leftist political thought always seems to fail in the US.
• 25:30
  Sherman Tylawsky: Sherman Tylawsky: Scott, that's a great point because what you're talking about, the timing there at that time, conservatives lamented that the 1949 as a loss of China, you know, and then the sense that they that they were hoping that the Kuomintang were going to prevail and unfortunately didn't. And so I would imagine that that history can tell a lot of conservatives saying that it it does feel like that the US-China relationship is very much a game of opportunities in the sense that when there was that opportunity to be able to challenge, you know, China on human rights issues, for example, after Tiananmen, but that you know certain economic interests came about you have probably have some concerns probably looking back and say that was a mistake that we should . . . we could have really maybe made efforts on the human rights element but we lost opportunities there. On the flip side you might also have people who are concerned or certain conservatives and I would say when I say certain conservatives, I do mean that like the pro-business side of conservatives so they favor more . . . less of the economic interventionism, they want more trade with China and all, you know, they might say that you know the sanctions on Hong Kong, for example, might be those are lost opportunities. So that I think feeds into the larger element where I think with Nixon. I think Nixon saw an opening with public opinion cuz public opinion was trending that way anyway and part during the '50s and the '60s and it's Nixon that finally pulls the trigger and says this is my, this is our opportunity to finally open, re-open relations with China. And same thing with the, I think, with regards to China's entry in the WTO where certain wings of the conservative movement probably thinking this is finally our opportunity to capitalize on China finally entering into the 21st century economic system.
• 27:37
  Sherman Tylawsky: So there's a lot I think where based on that history of the loss of China. I think the sense that conservatives might be losing that game or they might be losing opportunities to reshape the course of US-China relations. I'd say that is at least one consideration that every president, conservative or liberal, has considered on the Chinese relationship in part because with such a complex relationship and the fact that there's so now so many consequences to how that relationship works or doesn't work, there's clearly a lot of interest in the presidents and members of Congress to figure out, okay what is the name of the game here? What is our strategy to potentially alter how the . . . how geopolitics and the global economy work?
• 28:25
  Scott: Do you have a question there, Crystal?
• 28:25
  Scott: Crystal: Yeah, there's a lot to consider there. [laughter] I was trying to think of a simplistic way to to describe what's happening between the United States and China. Maybe you can help mold the way I think about this. Sherman. It seems to me that the American culture teaches people to be your best self and that's how you get ahead and that's how you get the best products. And China's stance more of that collective communist socialistic-type view is all you need to do is stay ahead of the best person. And so their their view in life is look around the world, see what's working the best and try to get ahead of it. Now, from the American standpoint, when Nixon opened this up, I mean, I think our thinking was, let's China do the manufacturing and we'll do all the IP and we'll be the head and they'll be the body. And I just think that we didn't expect that China would develop the manufacturing and then go right in and start stealing the IP to take the whole game. And I just I think we're kind of trying to figure out how to manage that at this point. Is that an accurate summary?
• 29:46
  Scott: want to say, establishment, I know it's a term that can be used in a lot of different ways. So if you want to say that I think there's a lot of people within the Nixon administration, subsequent administrations that thought exactly that. They thought that China was going to play by the rules. That was what a lot of conservatives and liberals especially especially in the '80s and the '90s ,in the 2000s, they said this is going to . . . they're going to be finally part of the game, you know, finally as a major player. And so if you're on the conservative side, you might be able to say, okay, now this is opportunity to, for them to play by the rules so we can have good economic competition right, and to be able to grow our respective economies and make the world a bit richer. Then you have on the liberal side people saying that well, of course, they're going to be playing by the rules, right, if they play by the rules we can tackle climate change, we can tackle human rights, we can do all those things. It was I believe on a fallacy of assuming that in some ways assuming that every country in the world just plays like a rational player in the mind of an American. And what I think we've constantly failed and this is regardless whether it's China or Iraq, Afghanistan, or somewhere else where we do believe that because we're the big dog in the world that everyone's got to eventually adopt values kind of in a way where it seems like we we kind of fuel our own values with the founding of the country. It's like, oh, if you just get the right values, the right people in there, then you're going to change society. Well, clearly if you look at the differences between the US and China, China sees 1776 like it was last week, you know, and so it it's it's that kind of mindset where we have lost that too. We kind of think that we're so established that a player like or a country like China is definitely going to play by the rules that we write. Well, the Chinese, they've gone through a number, thousands and thousands of years of history. They've seen revolutions.
• 31:49
  Scott: They've seen how empires come about and collapse. There there clearly was, I believe, a collective misunderstanding of how China operates. And while I'm sure there were there's some good intentions in that, there . . . that I don't think is an excuse for misunderstanding a major player like China. And we're certainly paying the price for that in terms of as you mentioned right with regards to whether it's jobs, whether it's national security and we still have a lot of work to do on that end of ensuring that people understand this larger relationship and seeing that, seeing the threat of again making that distinction between the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese people. But I'm hopeful that with more of that effort that people will be able to to see that you know what, it's not a good thing to just let everyone else manufacture things because what if you do need to manufacture your own products and particularly if it's something highly sensitive like computer chips or something. So there's a lot that I think we've gone through over the last few decades. My goal is to just be candid with people and encourage people to read about the the relationship, read about the just some of the crazy things that have happened in the last several years of China trying to again rewrite a narrative, right? Whether it's about COVID or something else, but also just ensuring that people have that open mind to really understand and see that we've actually done a lot of things to try and counter that as well. And I do think that the people and the policies that have made it a bit easier to detect those threats, be able to counter those threats and maintain good communications with Taiwan. Those things I think should be recognized, too.
• 33:42
  Scott: Crystal: I think these are when I look at the US-China relations and how we got here, I see parallels with Iran and Russia in that Americans are failing to understand the value system differences between the countries.
• 34:02
  Scott: And I think that's really critical to try to understand because otherwise we're going to keep bumbling into this. And so one cool compliment for American culture and society is, you know, in order to achieve freedom in a free market, it requires a ton of trust. And so we learn to watch outcomes and trust outcomes, trust each other, because the free market puts enough pressures on you that it pretty much keeps you honest. And so we're just used to trusting and we really need to be wary of that when we deal with actors like China and Iran and Russia because they're very well aware of how trustworthy we are and how much we value trust and they play right along with it and we go okay like China will be like okay we'll we'll buy soybeans and we'll buy your Boeing airplanes and then 6 months, 18 months down the line why haven't you bought them yet?
• 34:59
  Scott: Well, we're dealing with a little bit of economic issues. We're going to get to it. Blah blah blah.
• 35:03
  Scott: And then they never get to it, but we did our side of the bargain. So, I mean, we really need to watch this kind of stuff and really understand it.
• 35:13
  Scott: you looked out here, Sherman, because this question between ideology and institutions is playing out here, right? Crystal just outlined, I think, a very good argument about the ideology, the value-based differences. I would argue that one of the problems the US is facing vis-a-vis China and other countries, but specifically vis-a-vis China as an institutional issue is that a lot of that theory that comes out of the '50s and '60s and '70s, so-called modernization theory holds even down to today that China is a developing country, that it needs leeway because it's got institutions, it's got infrastructure to build. Oh, we can't hold China to climate change accords because they need to build their infrastructure. And I think part of what we're missing is they have built that infrastructure, right, it's already in place and that's what's allowing them to steal IP and produce high-end goods, which is not what was being thought in the'80s. US thought China was going to be, you know, another Vietnam, right, or another South Korea producing sort of low-end. You know, they might be technological items, but they were low-end sort of commercial products not the high-end manufacturing that China has already demonstrated, but we still insist they're a developing country.
• 36:29
  Scott: Sherman Tylawsky: Exactly. If ideology and institutions. My theory is that I do believe ideology still matters, of course, right? You can't have a lot of things without ideology, without some element of a belief system.
• 36:46
  Scott: My concern, of course, nowadays is whether or not the people we elect, members of Congress, the president, Supreme Court justices are not voted by the people, but of course we have the confirmation process in the Senate. So that include judges on the local level, state level. My concern is that the institutional decay that is happening whether it be political parties or government might be in the way of people really understanding these issues. So, for example, one of the things I'm looking at of course is looking at Congress. So I look at how members of Congress have developed these positions on China and Taiwan policy. There's a very big difference between a member of Congress who has studied and understood the issue and can form an opinion about China and Taiwan versus somebody who might be supporting a bill that cracks down on say Chinese companies trying to invest in some industry. But that person is voting mainly or purely on party lines.
• 37:52
  Scott: And so what happens if you have a political party that just has a different person there could be from a more radical wing on the left or on the right and that person just all of a sudden says and I would expect this person to say, oh, you know this whole thing of the US cracking down on the CCP, you know, that's that stuff that's, you know, uni-party talk or something you and what if they now adopt a position that is much more friendlier to the CCP. Now, those people, if they're part of the the leadership in that party, my concern is that because of partisanship and how that has creeped into so much of our politics that you're not going to be able to incentivize enough members to to think of what's best for our national security or for our country and instead going along party lines. Polarization, I think, is working in a similar direction where there's both the and as I mentioned radical policies on left or on the right but also just more of the animosity, right, that can really divide institutions. There's a lot there but I'm certainly concerned that we're not building enough or strong enough of an ideological base to prop up these institutions so that you don't . . . it's not I just want an institution to think one way. It's more about what are the processes that take place. How do members of Congress actively understand these issues because there's a gazillion issues out there and we can certainly touch upon those a little bit but just there's so much there that that needs to be done and I'm curious to see how institutions hold up over the course of time. But it's really a lot of things that we have to do to repair our institutions so that they can better adjust to the the ebbs and flows of the US-China relationship.
• 39:50
  Scott: Crystal: I think we've done a really good job of talking about the China-US policy on a global stage, kind of what the basics are of that. But of course we live here in Nevada, and I really want to try to look at how Chinese actions have a direct impact on Nevada. I know that they're involved in lithium dumping which makes it hard for us to to mine lithium at a a profitable rate. They use that rare earth card all the time. And we have a rare earth mine I think about an hour south of Las Vegas, technically in California. What else am I missing, Scott? What else are they? Data centers?
• 40:27
  Scott: Scott: Oh, data centers is a big one.
• 40:35
  Scott: So how do you see Chinese relations directly impacting Nevada, Sherman?
• 40:41
  Scott: is a good, it'll be good transition into talking about the campaign and all and just hearing from a lot of different voters about this. I'll say two things about it. The first is that China sees not just the larger geopolitical battle. They see technology as a means to achieve that. There's clearly a lot of value to everything from data to efficiency, energy, things like that. And I think the Chinese really do see that as a big component of how to execute their world view. And they're already doing that really to keep their state right now with the censorship that happens with the social credit system where basically if you do something wrong you get these points that deducted so you can't you buy a train ticket or buy, or borrow money, things like that which is crazy to think, insane, bonkers to to imagine here in the states.
• 41:34
  Scott: Crystal: No, I just wanted to say just to illustrate what you just said. It's like you were speeding, you got pulled over, you got speeding ticket. Now instead of a 2% APR on your credit card, you're going to have to pay 4% cuz you got bumped into a worse class. Right?
• 41:52
  Scott: Sherman Tylawsky: Right. It's to be fair over there. I don't think they believe in a meritocracy over in a place like that.
• 42:03
  Scott: But anyway that's just big picture in terms of technology, how it plays into, with China. And of course they're using using all kinds of methods to do that. Where data centers play a role here is, and this is again the big picture here, so not necessarily just on the China issue, one of the
• 42:22
  things that I've been hearing about is this: the public opinion about data centers right, whether they using or using more or less energy or using more or less water or whether we we want these these huge places in our backyards. I'd say though that we have to be a bit cautious about how we read public opinion on data centers. And the reason why I say that is because data centers are not just a physical structure with a lot of wires in them. I believe in this day and age it means uncertainty that people have about the future of AI in work, the future of social media.
• 43:01
  things that I've been hearing about is this: Certainly there's no shortage of people's experiences, bad experiences on social media, to say the least. There are concerns about the, about income inequality perhaps on particular on the left comes to, you know, big companies and the general public.
• 43:22
  things that I've been hearing about is this: All I'm saying is that there's a lot of different fault lines that might be there that we might not be just be addressing as well. I'm not saying that data centers in themselves, in terms of the projects themselves, are controversial. I'm just saying that I do think we need to be more cautious of how we understand where people stand on data centers cuz there are the arguments, right, of people saying that well, we are using more data that we are relying a lot more on our phones on computers and this AI technology which we're still trying to figure out in many ways.
• 43:56
  things that I've been hearing about is this: There is that aspect. But I do think that there's a there's a larger nexus of different concerns that people have that have culminated in a data center, if that makes sense. And that's more, that's the academic side of me in terms of how I read public opinion from my experiences. I just know public opinion is very difficult to measure because of the disparities of what people know or don't know about certain issues. And just, I just put that as a word of caution to say perhaps someone who's opposed to data centers might be just opposed to the fact that maybe that person's son or daughter is going to be working in accounting and is not sure what AI is going to do to his or her job or that could or it could be someone who might might be a farmer, right? Is concerned that the data center is going to be taking away a lot of the energy or perhaps water resources. So there the . . . sometimes the issues thing could be very complex and so I just want to offer that as part of the data centers component In the larger picture, I hope that data centers can be part of the conversation about the larger geopolitical competition against China because China certainly is going to be paying attention to this very closely. I imagine that the Chinese Communist Party is going to be looking, seeing how it can have an effect on the discourse about data centers trying to maybe, again, going back to the divide and conquer element I mentioned earlier. There's a lot to look forward to, but I'm hoping that there's a conversation. There's robust conversations of vision and ways where we can improve not just the conversation about data centers, but conversation about all these issues that are that are crashing into one pretty large mess here.
• 45:41
  things that I've been hearing about is this: Scott: Sounds like what you're
• 45:47
  Crystal: Well, I was going to say a slight alteration of that is like this firmly lands in the political candidates's lap because we're talking about water resources, we're talking about electricity resources, we're talking about potential infrastructure for military, we're talking about the takeover of the free market, we're talking about the the war between China and us and what happens if they get there first. I mean, we're talking about everything that human beings care about all wrapped up into one issue. So, it's pretty important.
• 46:21
  Scott: So, it's interesting you bring up, Sherman, this this issue of preparing leaders because you know what one of the things you and I first met when you're running for the CD-2 race here in Nevada.
• 46:31
  Scott: And I've already mentioned you were the youngest candidate out of that slate of 15, I think, right?
• 46:37
  Scott: Morgan Wodssworth, I think a bit younger than you on the Democratic side. But it's an interesting discussion because I think one of the things we're caught in the US in right now across the nation, but it's certainly played out here in this most recent election cycle here in Nevada, is about this old established political assignment, the traditional way you do stuff and new alternative approaches. Give us a bit here of your experience doing that and where you see this sort of new generation, new style of leadership emerging, if at all, here in Nevada.
• 47:10
  Scott: Sherman Tylawsky: Sure. Well, first of all, I ran that I have to say I got to meet so many amazing people including Scott. Scott, as you recall, I went up to Elko for that GOP meeting in the council chambers there, and it really is quite a process that I, and where I learned so much. And you really start to see the workings of how this form of democracy occurs, whether it's the people putting together the town halls, whether it's local journalists, whether it's interest groups, right, chambers of commerce, you name it. There's a lot of different stakeholders at play. So, I just want to first acknowledge just all the people I got to learn from and not to mention the candidates I got to know. Got to know a number of different candidates, even candidates who are running very, very heated races in those in those primaries, which the heat is understatement. It's August now. So, it's probably . . .
• 48:12
  Crystal: Whatever are you talking about, Chairman? [laughter] Sherman Tylawsky: So, it was, again, very interesting experience.
• 48:20
  Crystal: And Scott, on the issue of age, I'm glad you bring it up because as the youngest candidate, I think there's two things. One is, and I'm kind of glad it's like this, I don't feel like I got a free pass from anybody, whether it's the voters, whether it's interest groups asking questions.
• 48:37
  Crystal: There were a couple of opportunities to talk to groups who were looking for doing endorsement interviews. I believe they treated me just like any other candidate. So there is that side where I appreciate the fact that I am, I was treated very similarly in terms with other candidates and that there wasn't the distinction of oh, that that guy is under 30 so we'll just give him the free questions and all you just ask him what his favorite ice cream flavor is or something. So I'm glad I didn't do that. On the flip side though, there is always that challenge of how you get young people involved. And I'll defer to socialization because politics is very much who you're associated with, right? Who you socialize with. If you grow up in a certain part of the country and you live there for the first 50 years of your life, you're going to have very obvious different people and different political beliefs depending on whether you're in a very Republican place or a Democrat place. Could be your family, could be your friends.
• 49:38
  Crystal: And so the the socialization part, I believe, is where it can get very tricky because generally people like to be alongside people who are within the same age range or group. And so there there's that challenge there. I also think that there's often times, and I think it's kind of unfair because it we're only we can only play the cards we're dealt with, and there is this sense depending on which generation you ask, thinking that you have kind of one side.
• 50:11
  Crystal: Certain older generations might think that there is kind of a softness to young people in terms of that that because society has changed a lot with the new technology and all that. Maybe there's some certain things that young people might not be understanding a lot which I think there's some fair criticism of that. Then there's kind of the flip side where you have certain younger people might say that well you know this is kind of our turn, right, you know and we're kind of on the ups and all we're for the future things like that. I want to just summarize all that because I think within that there is a lot of value to having a broad tent and I'm not in the camp of thinking that you know everyone who's of a different generation just should not be discounted. I recently watched an episode with my dad, the first he hadn't seen this episode in years. I had never seen it myself. We watched the first episode of "All in the Family" from 1971 and I was amazed. I don't remember all the details of it, but I was just amazed seeing that for that show. First of all, it's a significant show in so many ways. I mean, even Nixon quoted in a couple of the episodes, but for me, I was very intrigued by that because it was very relatable and to be able to watch that with my dad and to see some parallels, some differences on how people saw different issues, whether it be on race or on income or on class. It was, I think, a very interesting window to look back at and reflect on. So I would say on just on age, age is only an impediment if we make it so. And it's incumbent on everybody to do their best to say, "I've got my own experiences. Scott, you have your own experiences. Crystal, you have your own experiences." And it's important just to always revert to the issues that affect all of us and that I think hopefully can cut across some of those fault lines there.
• 52:08
  Crystal: That's a great thing to point out. And I'm, you know, from the business side of things, I watch how business people try to capture people. And when I was listening to you talk about that old timey show, what strikes me when I watch those older shows is how calm it makes my dopamine system feel. And it's like you can tell that over time we've programmed people's dopamine systems to go for the quicker and quicker hit. But you watch those old-timey shows and you can almost feel what it was like to have a normal, unadultered dopamine system. So just an interesting side note. Well,
• 52:43
  Scott: Well, "All in the Family" is also interesting, Crystal, you know, one of the things we've talked about is of course rural identity. And one of the things "All in the Family" led to is the so-called rural purge where CBS and the networks, as the joke went, killed every show that had a tree in it.
• 53:00
  Scott: That they went hard towards these sort of urban comedies right there because of the success of "All in the Family." So, "Hee-Haw" and "Beverly Hillbillies" and all these shows disappear off the air within a single season simply because they want a more urban audience. Which gets to part of this, right? Cuz one of the things I think that's interesting about the CD2 race and you talked about meeting people from different perspectives. Of course, you're there in Carson City. I've made the argument over years Carson City isn't really rural. I mean it's defined under Nevada laws rural because its population is less than 100,000 but if you look at, you know, population density everything else it is clearly an urban environment. What did you find interesting here coming out into the rural sections of the 775, right, this broader thing. What struck you as as sort of totally different than what you were expecting to hear? Sherman Tylawsky: I'll tell you a little story. We did a volunteer cleanup in Lovelock on a Saturday morning, and we joined some volunteers and I got to speak to some of the locals and it was hard to hear about the struggles with some of the basic necessities, whether it be a functioning sewage plant, whether it be just good schools, having teachers paid, paid enough to be to stay there to teach the kids, whether it's recreational facilities. And there were a lot of things there I I'd say one of the hardest parts, it wasn't that, you know, it wasn't that I was struggling to kind of come up with a number of things that people were concerned about it's really going back to the role of the US representative. And you . . . we had me talked earlier before the recording that I've had the opportunity to intern on the Hill twice. Once for a Democrat congressman, Mike Thompson. He represents the wine country area, and representative Jody Hice, a Republican. He is no longer in Congress, but he was, of course, at the time. And coming from Georgia, representing college town plus some rural parts of Georgia. And I learned a lot about the rules. Not because, you know, I went in there and just said, "Okay, I'm just going to, let's solve the national debt crisis right now." But it was about understanding how to communicate the rule to the public because I mentioned some of those issues. I do believe that with some of those critical infrastructure issues, whether it be I-80, for example, where we're dealing with interstate commerce, if we're dealing with critical minerals, right? And if you think Thacker Pass in Winnemucca, those are some really critical issues I think the federal government can have some kind of role. What was hard, but I think it was necessary, was to be candid about telling people what our vision was for CD-2 and to highlight that as US representatives is important to respect what the local and state officials do because there's a lot of issues that I wish the federal government could address but we also live in a federalist system where everyone's got to play their role and be the best at their game. And it was easy to be able to hear all these kinds of issues and to be able to try and put myself into certain people's shoes because it is, it's extremely hard. I can't imagine what it is like when you see from the rural side looking at Reno and Sparks and realizing that there's a ton more people there than in the rurals.
• 56:37
  Scott: But I also do think that it's important to respect the rural identity in the sense that respecting their sovereignty in that sense of ensuring that the county commissioners, the sheriffs, all those people can be, can do the best they can within the resources and be able to have the federal government or state government depending on the responsibility to be able to to fill in when there's clearly a need. Clearly a state or federal need to be able to do so. So, it it was a combination of things, but it was really eye opening to travel to different rural parts and to do my very best to to tell them that I certainly I can hear from the best of my ability and I want to really tell people to say. I in some ways I think it's a good thing to say I have a lot to learn and I'm willing to learn. I believe going back to age, I think one of the benefits of of having young people in politics is there's a lot of opportunity to learn and to grow and to develop experience and that's certainly a department that well we that people like myself need but that's I think a part of the process and we felt it was important to just tell people say that if that if we have the opportunity, we would love to have you and your community be part of that part of that seat at the table in terms of teaching us about what is needed in the rurals.
• 58:04
  Scott: Crystal: Yeah, the rurals are really by the . . . in terms of perception from the rest of the country are really misunderstood and it's part of our, you know, the culture of rurals and I love Northern Nevada and the rural people there. They've taught me so much. I came from Seattle and you know it was a huge learning curve for me. And I remember those first few times I went into rural communities and having those eye-opening moments of like, this is completely different from everything. And it was surprising to me that it took a couple years for me to really see what was there. And you know, after spending that time there, it's hard to communicate to the outside world just how special and worth preserving these groups of people are.
• 58:56
  Scott: And if I could move it away from a subjective statement, I feel like our society, we've never grown and transformed as much as we have in the last hundred years. And the more things we change and the quicker we change, the higher the probability that something will go wrong.
• 59:14
  Scott: And to me, rural communities are the original way that we transacted ourselves for thousands of years. So if the worst happens and we have some massive failure on a global level with AI, with a pandemic, with any number of things, nuclear war, I really think that the federal government should consider investing in rural communities to keeping them the way that they are, making sure they have what they need cuz I think they're a good security. They're hedging our bet in case everything goes wrong. These people know how to do everything. Like without any help, without a textbook. So, I think they're so important.
• 59:58
  Scott: I used to watch as a kid, "Little House on the Prairie," it's a show that obviously I didn't really understand at the time when I watched it, but given that it took place in this in the 70s, you know, this was certainly a very volatile time in American politics, it offered people a sense of simplicity. It offered people a sense of comfort and that there that it was there's a value to bringing people back to the simpler days. I do think that the rurals play a very important role in that, in reminding us of where our food comes from and where our food supply chains come from, where our natural beauty comes from, where we get to you, you can drive around and see some beautiful wild horses. You know there . . . I do think that there is a very important role for rurals to play in that sense. And I would also say that, and this is in general, for whether it's for urban or for rural, but certainly on the concept of education and I would say education, I'm going to call it education of walking around is my term for that, there is a lot of value to going to a place like Lovelock or Carlin or West Wendover and looking around and seeing what's interesting. It sounds very simplistic, but the campaign really put me in a spot where I've . . . not only did I not have a choice, but it really made me curious about, okay, what why is it called this place, right? What kind of industries are there? And I just know that with meeting some of the great people there, including again number of great candidates, too, cuz candidates do have to come from these places and to represent those. But I gain, I gain a new appreciation for the rurals and it is difficult to always combine the interests of South Reno and a different part in the rural. That's probably more of a different conversation regarding your representation and all, but I do think that is . . . I've certainly learned that whoever is going to take this seat to replace Congressman Amodei who's retiring, has a lot of different issues to balance and is not easy and I certainly would not criticize someone for just occupying a position. I think it's important to have your own opinions to be able to express own policies. But I certainly, I've seen at times when people get personal about somebody and I never accept that. And I hope that whoever is in that position is going to take on a very different Congress than now. But the responsibilities and the issues are still there. And so there's a lot that, again, I've combined with my time in the rurals and in other parts of the district, but certainly gaining that new appreciation was a big benefit there.
• 1:02:59
  Scott: Well, this is interesting. I think we're going to be talking to you quite a bit here over the next few years, Sherman, as you continue your career. But for right now, if somebody wants to know a little bit more about the George Washington Institute, which you run, or the Friends and Fellow Citizens podcast, where can they reach out to you and chat with you a bit?
• 1:03:19
  Scott: for the George Washington Institute, that is my speaking platform in general. So that's presentations, that's mainly the podcast, which is called Friends and Fellow Citizens. It is the first four words of George Washington's farewell address. And just very briefly, the podcast is about applying those values to politics today, to understand our history, to understand our civics, and to think about civility and fiscal responsibility and faith and other topics there that may apply to our our world today. And you can go on to georgewashingtoninstitute.org and just georgewashingtoninstitute.org. Everyone knows how to spell George Washington. But that'll be the main website. And then on that website, we have, of course, there's a red button there that to click on our podcast. Podcast is called Friends and Fellow Citizens. You can find on any podcast app and on YouTube as well.
• 1:04:13
  Scott: Scott: Well, it's been great. And if you want to get hold of us, of course, go ahead and shoot us an email at info@775alive.com. Sherman, thank you again for being on. And we'll be, of course, you and I will be talking a little bit more on the Nevada Forum over the next week or so, the working group we're in. But until next time, I'm Scott Gavorsky.
• 1:04:35
  Crystal: And I'm Crystal Newton.
• 1:04:35
  Crystal: Scott: We'll see you around the 775. Alive, Nevada Roots, Global Issues. Subscribe on YouTuber X and on most podcast streaming services. You can email us at info@775alive.com or send us a message via carrier pigeon. [music ends]