Bret Devereaux

if I may make an ancient comparison - Rome was largely non-ideological in terms of the local governments and client states it preferred. But demands of 'no fuss, taxes get collected, no anti-Roman agitation' meant that, over time, those governmentsmostly ended up as oligarchies.

Sure, like I said any criticism of its so-called "core interests" which includes Xinjiang. This might work for some neighbors. But not for US/European media, and Beijing knows it. The q for the US is what are its vital interests w.r.t. the American people?

We are greatly overestimating Chinese power if we think it can bully the US population and media to become non-democratic otherwise (but even on Xinjiang actually!). China has plenty of nearby balancers and will face challenges in the region even if the US disappeared one day.

I'm not arguing the PRC is going to bully US democracy. I am arguing that Americans broadly understand they have an interest in also not letting the PRC bully Japanese, South Korea, Taiwanese, or Australian democracy.

In part because the system of liberal democracies as it exists right now is largely back-stopped by a collective defense whose lynch-pin is the USA's commitment to defend liberal democracies abroad and to coordinate collective defense.

Something that seems all the more relevant given that the 2016 election-interference-experience seems to suggest that even from a purely non-ideological perspective the non-democracies have recognized an interest in de-consolidating the democracies.

And more broadly, it seems hard not to notice that for the USA, other liberal democracies are much better and easier to work with partners on a wide range of issues from trade to IP protection, human rights and climate.

Not so. The US has worked v. well with non-democracies for decades. Saudi, Qatar, Egypt, Taiwan/S.Korea before 90s, Greece, Spain, Portugal till 70s, Chile till 90s, etc. etc. Also lots of partial democracies. I'm not saying this is good btw, but it is empirical fact.