BSo the new line from the left is that America is completely isolated.
BAn account on X called The MAGA Hunter is sharing a MeidasTouch recap from Ben Meiselas. His big claim: world leaders are outmaneuvering Trump.
BThey point to the Cuba embargo vote, Russia's moves, and Canada, Europe, and China all getting cozy.
BAnd from that, they jump to 'completely isolated.' That's the word they want you to panic over.
BIsolation isn't just a talking point. If you lose the ability to coordinate sanctions or share intelligence, that has real costs.
BWait— you think the US was less isolated under Biden? Europe lectured him, the Middle East ignored him.
BThat's not the point— it's about whether Trump's approach is costing us leverage.
BLeverage? Russia was talking to China, Canada was talking to Europe long before this.
BBut there's a difference between them talking and us not being in the room.
BCome on— the US is still the world's biggest economy, biggest military, home of the dollar. Nobody is cutting us out.
BThe dollar and the military don't automatically get you invitations. Ask the British after Brexit.
BThat comparison again: the UK left a trading bloc; we are the trading bloc.
BWe're not in every room— the Cuba vote at the UN has been nearly unanimous against us for decades. That's not new.
BExactly— that's my point. It's not evidence of Trump isolating America, it's evidence that the UN has always been like this.
BBut MeidasTouch is using it as evidence that Trump specifically has isolated us. That's the part worth arguing about.
BAnd I'm arguing it's overblown. You don't get to call America isolated while half the world still holds our debt and buys our weapons.
BHolding our debt doesn't mean they'll back us in a crisis.
BIt means they need us as much as we need them. That's not isolation, that's mutual dependence.
BMutual dependence can still leave you on the outside of decision-making.
BAlright, Bella, then name one decision from the last year where the US was locked out.
BNot locked out so much as slower and more conditional. That's the real risk the post gets right, even if 'completely' is a stretch.
BFine, I'll give you 'a stretch.' That's the most you'll get.
BDifferent world entirely— literally. A post on X says Xi Jinping is demanding more loyalty as purges trim the party elite.
BThe account, madmilker, is citing the Wall Street Journal, and throwing in some numbers: 1.4 billion people, only 100 million Communist Party members.
BThe point being, most Chinese citizens aren't party members, yet they've lived under capitalism for decades.
BThe population figures roughly check out. The purge claim itself— I haven't seen independent confirmation yet.
BBut purges aren't new. Xi has spent a decade removing rivals from the Politburo, the military, even state companies.
BTrue. The question is whether this is a fresh crackdown or just the same playbook.
BI think the post raises a fair question: why does the Journal talk about 'Communist Party' as if it's a monolith?
BBecause the party controls the courts, the media, the army, and the economy. Membership count doesn't dilute that.
BBut 100 million out of 1.4 billion is less than ten percent. They're running a capitalist machine, not a commune.
BThe party owns the banks, and party-linked funds own the tech giants. That's state capitalism, not free markets.
BState capitalism is still capitalism. Xi just wants to make sure the money goes through him.
BOkay, the loyalty demand is real enough— the WSJ story may be new, but the pattern is fifteen years old.
BSo you're saying the Journal is late to the party?
BI'm saying the purges are old news. The loyalty oath is the new part.
BAnd if the party needs loyalty oaths from its own elite, that tells you how secure Xi feels.
BWhich is exactly what the post is getting at. A party that has to demand loyalty is a party that's worried.
BWorried and armed with the world's second biggest economy. That's a dangerous combination.
BWhich is why anyone watching the South China Sea should care about internal party discipline.