Op-ed views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

Nancy Pelosi has always been a self-serving bureaucrat whose “service” has only benefitted her bank account. How does someone who earns $200K per year amass over 100 million dollars in assets? 

Recently, she has taken selfishness to a new level. Her leaked plans of possibly visiting Taiwan has made things between U.S. and China, who already have intensely strained relations, far more heated. So what does she hope to accomplish by threatening to visit Taiwan? Will she wave her broomstick and magically make the issues between China and Taiwan go away? Why has she insisted that her visit will have any positive impact (other than making a tense situation worse?) Why does she ignore the potential military ramifications of this pointless visit?  

Even President Biden (referring to Pelosi’s trip to Taiwan) said two weeks ago, “…the military thinks it’s not a good idea right now.” Yet, she ignored his comment and left for Asia because she only does what she wants to do. Looking at this from a cost-benefit analysis, what is the benefit? Pelosi claims her visit will establish American dominance in the region. That claim is laughable as if her going to a few state dinners will do anything to prove American “dominance” in the region. The cost, potential war, or at least military action that could quickly escalate between the U.S. and China, as the Chinese have threatened to take action if she goes to Taiwan.

Some Americans, including Newt Gingrich, have stated that they believe since Pelosi announced the visit, she has to go or America will take a hit on the world stage. America has already taken many international hits by sending a fumbling, bumbling, babbling president to meet world leaders. We have sent Vice President Harris to meet with world leaders and all she did was cackle and make a fool of herself in Poland, and when asked serious questions about Ukraine.  

Some American believe that Pelosi canceling a visit to Taiwan would be a form of appeasement, but they are misguided in this notion. Appeasement is when a person or country looks the other way against an aggressive opponent. It is the opponent who initiates the aggression. When Hitler built up Germany’s military and violated the Treaty of Versailles, then began invading territories while England and France did nothing, that was appeasement. However, in this case, it isPelosi who is instigating the problem, and China is reacting to it, that is not appeasement.  

Anyone who believes that America should get into a pissing contest with China does not understand Chinese culture. As someone who has lived in China for over a decade, there is something that is sacred in China, and that is called “face.” You can save it or lose it. Losing face is a serious issue, especially for men in leadership positions. It is caused by perceived disrespect. In normal, everyday relations, this can lead to a strong reaction. 

However, when we’re dealing with the president or the entire country in general, it is a very serious offense. Most Americans, when disrespected, will argue, have a confrontation, or react to the situation in a different way. In China, loss of face is a major insult and usually results in the person demanding an apology, and if that doesn’t happen it results in the person ceasing to talk to the offending party. On a national level, it will definitely lead to retaliation because it is viewed as a literal slap in the face. I’ve read articles where Taiwanese are saying that China is just threatening and these threats don’t mean anything, however, they would love for America to join them against China, so their commentary is equally self-serving.  

Currently, WeChat (one of China’s most significant social media outlets) has many short videos of Pelosi, and the response to her from Chinese people that is almost as unfavorable as how most Republicans view her, but the Chinese are nicer! Personally, I traveled halfway around the world so I didn’t have to see her face, but now I can’t open up WeChat without seeing it. There are WeChat clips of Trump saying she is crazy and the consensus is the same: “STAY HOME!”  

In October of 1962, Russians attempted to set up military bases in Cuba and it was met with a naval blockade that almost caused World War III. It was a staring contest between Nikita Khrushchev and John F. Kennedy to see who would blink first. Fortunately, Khrushchev blinked and the crisis was resolved. This, of course, is not viewed as serious as placing missiles nearby because the only thing that is involved here is Pelosi shooting off her big mouth. However, China views any U.S. involvement in their area of the world as being intrusive and China’s president Xi has stated that the U.S. must not “play with fire.” 

So what could be Pelosi’s motive for such an action? Is she just craving attention or are there political ramifications? August is 3 months from the midterm elections. All polls show that the democrats are in for a serious beat down by Republicans because of a myriad of reasons that include runaway inflation, open borders that have allowed approximately 1 million illegals to enter America, a recession (despite what the administration flunkeys call it) and numerous other failures that have made Americans angry. 

Is it possible that Speaker Pelosi sees this as an opportunity to divert American anger towards China and away from Democratic failures that have caused so much hardship for Americans? Suppose her visit incites military conflict between the U.S. and China, what then?  Traditionally Americans, when threatened, unify and react to lend support to leadership. We saw this during WWII, as even the staunchest Republicans lined up to support FDR, and we saw it again during 9/11 when staunch Democrats lined up to support the Bush administration.  

To cause a war to prevent Democratic losses and the taking over of Congress by Republicans would be the most self-serving action even for Pelosi, yet when it comes to political maneuvering I would put nothing past the Congressional representative whose district is known for out of control homelessness, public urination and defecation. 

Regardless of Pelosi’s intentions, the point is that any military conflict or potential war will affect billions of people and cause pain and suffering worldwide. It is a lose-lose situation.  Liberals love to talk about “toxic masculinity,” which is basically allowing one’s ego to dominate relationships. Isn’t the idea that provoking a fight with another nation to serve the purpose of asserting “dominance” a form of this, except in this case it’s an example of a toxic female politician? 

It took the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand to start WWI, and it is my hope that history doesn’t repeat itself, but one thing is for sure, NOTHING good can come from Pelosi’s arrogance, and perhaps she’d be better off visiting her district and solving their problems rather than creating problems elsewhere.

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.