IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/woraff/v188y2025i2ne12069.html

Save the World or Make a Deal? An Ideological Diagnoses of China–US Relations and the Possibility of Escaping the Thucydides Trap

Author

Listed:
  • Ruairidh J. Brown

Abstract

This article explores the overlooked dimension of ideology in China–US relations. It argues that ideologies are likely to increase the tendency for war when they contain an eschatological structure that frames conflict with an ideological opponent as a moral choice, if not a moral imperative. Three ideologies will be analyzed—American Exceptionalism, America First, and Chinese Socialism. I show that American Exceptionalism has an eschatological framework, whereas America First and Chinese Socialism do not. I diagnose that a combination of American Exceptionalism and Chinese Socialism is most likely to produce a tendency toward war, whereas America First and Chinese Socialism is the most likely combination to escape the Thucydides Trap. The article will end with future prognosis of ways in which the ideological dimension of the Trap can be mitigated and avoided. 本文探讨了中美关系中被忽视的意识形态维度。本文论证,如果意识形态包含一种末世论结构,将与意识形态对手的冲突建构为一种道德选择(如果不是道德义务的话),那么这种意识形态就可能加剧战争倾向。本文将分析三种意识形态——美国例外论、美国优先论和中国社会主义。我指出,美国例外论拥有末世论框架,而美国优先论和中国社会主义论则没有这种框架。我认为,美国例外论与中国社会主义论的结合最有可能产生战争倾向;而美国优先论与中国社会主义论的结合最有可能避免“修昔底德陷阱”。本文最后将对如何减轻和避免“修昔底德陷阱”的意识形态维度进行未来预测。 Este artículo explora la dimensión, poco conocida, de la ideología en las relaciones entre China y Estados Unidos. Argumenta que las ideologías tienden a incrementar la tendencia a la guerra cuando contienen una estructura escatológica que enmarca el conflicto con un oponente ideológico como una opción moral, si no como un imperativo moral. Se analizarán tres ideologías: el excepcionalismo estadounidense; Estados Unidos primero; y el socialismo chino. Se demostrará que el excepcionalismo estadounidense tiene un marco escatológico, mientras que Estados Unidos primero y el socialismo chino no. Posteriormente, se diagnosticará que la combinación de excepcionalismo estadounidense y socialismo chino es la que tiene más probabilidades de generar una tendencia a la guerra; mientras que Estados Unidos primero y el socialismo chino es la combinación con más probabilidades de escapar de la trampa de Tucídides. El artículo finalizará con un pronóstico futuro sobre cómo mitigar y evitar la dimensión ideológica de la trampa.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruairidh J. Brown, 2025. "Save the World or Make a Deal? An Ideological Diagnoses of China–US Relations and the Possibility of Escaping the Thucydides Trap," World Affairs, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 188(2), April.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:woraff:v:188:y:2025:i:2:n:e12069
    DOI: 10.1002/waf2.12069
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/waf2.12069
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/waf2.12069?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barber, Michael & Pope, Jeremy C., 2019. "Does Party Trump Ideology? Disentangling Party and Ideology in America," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 113(1), pages 38-54, February.
    2. Peter Gries, 2022. "Beyond Power Politics: How Ideology Motivates Threat Perception—and International Relations," International Studies, , vol. 59(4), pages 289-314, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jonathan Knuckey & Myunghee Kim, 2020. "The Politics of White Racial Identity and Vote Choice in the 2018 Midterm Elections," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1584-1599, July.
    2. Barton, Jared & Pan, Xiaofei, 2022. "Movin’ on up? A survey experiment on mobility enhancing policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    3. Caroline Le Pennec & Vincent Pons, 2023. "How do Campaigns Shape Vote Choice? Multicountry Evidence from 62 Elections and 56 TV Debates," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(2), pages 703-767.
    4. Richard Bronk & Wade Jacoby, 2020. "The epistemics of populism and the politics of uncertainty," LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series 152, European Institute, LSE.
    5. Arbatli, Cemal Eren & Gomtsyan, David, 2019. "Voting retrospectively: Critical junctures and party identification," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 356-390.
    6. Henry Milner, 2020. "Populism and Political Knowledge: The United States in Comparative Perspective," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 226-238.
    7. Simon Hetland & Rasmus Søndergaard Pedersen & Anders Rahbek, 2019. "Dynamic Conditional Eigenvalue GARCH," Discussion Papers 19-13, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    8. John T. Jost & Daniela Goya-Tocchetto & Aaron C. Kay, 2023. "The Psychology of Left-Right Political Polarization; and an Experimental Intervention for Curbing Partisan Animosity and Support for Antidemocratic Violence," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 708(1), pages 46-63, July.
    9. Suzan Sim & A-Sung Hong, 2025. "National Conflict and High-Skilled Immigrants’ Workplace Efforts: Evidence from the U.S.–China Conflict," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(6), pages 2245-2263, November.
    10. Ben M. Tappin & Adam J. Berinsky & David G. Rand, 2023. "Partisans’ receptivity to persuasive messaging is undiminished by countervailing party leader cues," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(4), pages 568-582, April.
    11. Mark R. DesJardine & Wei Shi & Timothy Werner, 2025. "Shareholder Activism and the Deterrence Effect of Democratic Politician Shareholders," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(2), pages 993-1019, March.
    12. James N. Druckman & Samara Klar & Yanna Krupnikov & Matthew Levendusky & John Barry Ryan, 2021. "Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(1), pages 28-38, January.
    13. Giampaolo Bonomi, 2024. "Disagreement Spillovers," Papers 2411.11186, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2026.
    14. Boumans, Dorine & Gründler, Klaus & Potrafke, Niklas & Ruthardt, Fabian, 2024. "Political leaders and macroeconomic expectations: Evidence from a global survey experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    15. Wesley Wehde & Matthew C Nowlin, 2021. "Public Attribution of Responsibility for Disaster Preparedness across Three Levels of Government and the Public: Lessons from a Survey of Residents of the U.S. South Atlantic and Gulf Coast," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 51(2), pages 212-237.
    16. Omer Ali & Klaus Desmet & Romain Wacziarg, 2024. "Does anger drive populism?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 44(4), pages 1513-1527.
    17. Hassan Afrouzi & Carolina Arteaga & Emily Weisburst, 2022. "Can Leaders Persuade? Examining Movement in Immigration Beliefs," CESifo Working Paper Series 9593, CESifo.
    18. Sonja Settele, 2019. "How Do Beliefs about the Gender Wage Gap Affect the Demand for Public Policy?," CEBI working paper series 19-13, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    19. Clem Brooks & Elijah Harter, 2021. "Redistribution Preferences, Inequality Information, and Partisan Motivated Reasoning in the United States," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, June.
    20. Adam Martin & Adam Swisher, 2025. "Voting like a human," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 202(3), pages 509-528, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:woraff:v:188:y:2025:i:2:n:e12069. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.