Who Can Save America? March 19 in History

Today, March 19, 2026, I read a piece in Newsweek: Donald Trump's approval rating among the MAGA base has reached a near-unprecedented 100%. The message was unmistakable — if you are MAGA, you must support Trump; if you don't, you are no longer MAGA. On specific policy questions, like whether to support foreign wars, a dissenting position is enough to get you cast out of the movement entirely. This news made me think not about American politics itself, but about history. History rarely repeats itself simply, but it rhymes with startling regularity. When a nation faces true danger, what decides its fate is rarely the enemy, or even the institutions themselves — it is whether the small number of people inside the system choose to comply, or choose to refuse. On March 19, 1945, as the Second World War neared its end, Hitler signed the infamous "Nero Decree" — officially the Demolitions on Reich Territory Order. It commanded the total destruction of Germany's bridges, railways, factories, power plants, and communications infrastructure, denying them to the advancing Allies. The logic was simple and brutal: if Germany could not win, Germany would not be allowed to survive. And yet the order was never fully carried out. Not because the Allies moved faster, but because one man inside the system chose not to fully obey. Albert Speer, then Minister of Armaments, understood that destroying all infrastructure would plunge the German people into famine and chaos after the war, leaving nothing on which to rebuild. Speer did not openly defy Hitler. He delayed, diluted, and selectively executed the orders. That quiet, incomplete compliance is what left Germany with the foundation to rebuild. Germany did not perish in its defeat — not because of institutions, but because one man, at the critical moment, chose his country over his leader. History also offers the opposite outcome. On March 19, 1279, in one of the largest naval battles in Chinese history, the Mongol-founded Yuan dynasty crushed the remnant Southern Song fleet at the Battle of Yamen. With defeat certain, the court faced a choice: surrender, negotiate, or die. They chose absolute loyalty. The child emperor Zhao Bing was carried into the sea on the back of a minister, and what followed him into the depths was not just a sovereign, but an entire dynasty. One may debate whether the emperor and his ministers had any alternative to death. But the fact remains: no one stayed behind to negotiate, no one stayed to preserve the state, no one chose to let the regime end while allowing the people to continue. This is why some argue that what we now call the Chinese nation — a concept that only gradually formed in the early nineteenth century — in a meaningful sense died on March 19, 1279. The fall of the Southern Song was not merely a military defeat; it was the failure of anyone within the system to violate loyalty at the final hour for the sake of the country itself. In 1945 Germany, someone defied orders, and the nation was reborn. In 1279 Song China, everyone was loyal to the end, and the nation vanished. History tells us again and again — nations are rarely destroyed by their enemies. They are decided by choices made from within. Today's America is not 1279 Song China, nor 1945 Germany. But it is entering a similarly dangerous condition: political loyalty is gradually superseding loyalty to institutions themselves. In this environment, opposing one's own leader is treated as betrayal; cooperating with the other side is treated as surrender; showing restraint is treated as weakness. When politics reaches this state, institutions may still formally exist — but the trust on which those institutions depend has begun to vanish. History shows that nations are most fragile not when laws are abolished, but when the laws remain while no one is willing to follow the rules anymore. Over the past decade, the political force organized around the Make America Great Again movement has not merely reshaped electoral outcomes — it has been gradually reshaping how America itself operates, and even the role it plays in the world. First, MAGA has effectively ended the Republican Party as it once existed. The old Republican Party was a complex coalition with competing factions and genuine ideological diversity, from Eisenhower to Reagan to the two Bushes. But today, an increasing number of observers believe the Republican Party is no longer that party — it has become a political organization assembled around Trump. In MAGA political culture, loyalty routinely trumps principle. Whether you support Trump has become the primary measure of political identity. Dissenters are marginalized, primaried, or silenced. When a party no longer tolerates internal dissent, it ceases to be a party in the traditional sense and becomes something else — a movement, or a personalized power structure. Historically, this is usually a signal that institutions are beginning to lose their stability. Second, MAGA is pulling America toward isolation. For decades, American grand strategy was built on a system of alliances — NATO, security commitments to allies in Europe and Asia, America as the core of the Western order. Under "America First," that tradition is being eroded. Tariffs have surged, triggering trade conflicts with allies. Aid to Ukraine has been repeatedly delayed and threatened with termination. NATO allies have been pressured to renegotiate security commitments. Long-standing international cooperation mechanisms have been openly questioned. None of these moves may immediately destroy America's position — but they are steadily undermining America's most important asset: allied trust. Historically, great powers decline not from a single defeat, but because allies gradually drift away. Third, America has been withdrawing from or weakening multiple international treaties and institutions. In recent years, the United States has exited or undermined a series of international agreements: the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran nuclear deal, the World Health Organization (joined, then left again), the INF Treaty, the UN Human Rights Council. Each decision can be debated on its own merits, but the overall trend is unmistakable — America is transforming from a builder of the international system into a country that keeps walking out of it. Fourth, "America First" is reshaping America's national identity. After the Cold War, America consistently described itself as a nation that not only pursued its own interests, but represented something universal — a set of values for the world. Ronald Reagan called America a "city upon a hill," a beacon of freedom and democracy. Under "America First," national interest has been redefined as short-term gain; international responsibility is framed as a burden; values-based diplomacy is dismissed as naïve. A nation that no longer believes it stands for something larger than itself can still be powerful. It just becomes very hard to trust. Fifth, a set of radical policy shifts are further transforming America's traditional posture. Whether it is a hard turn on Middle East policy, debates over potential military involvement in Iran, sweeping skepticism toward alliances, immigration, and international institutions — these policies are pushing America from a rules-based great power toward something more like an ordinary one: focused on force rather than norms, on interests rather than ideals, on the immediate rather than the long term. For eighty years, America was not merely a superpower — it cast itself as a symbol. A symbol of openness, rule of law, responsibility, and commitment to the free world. Whether or not that promise was always kept, the image itself was a crucial source of American influence. It is why America was called a "shining city on a hill." It is why it remained, for so many, a country of hope. Under the political culture of Make America Great Again, America is moving, step by step, toward a different kind of isolation. First, isolation in credibility. When a nation repeatedly exits agreements, reverses the commitments of prior administrations, threatens allies, dismisses cooperation frameworks, and treats international rules as optional tools to be discarded at will — the world learns a lesson. American commitments are no longer what they were. Credibility takes decades to build. It can be spent in a few years. Second, isolation in moral standing. For all its imperfections, America once consistently proclaimed values — democracy, human rights, the rule of law — as the things that distinguished it from ordinary great powers. When political language shifts toward force, revenge, transaction, and winning; when principle, responsibility, and restraint fade from the vocabulary — America may still be powerful. It is no longer obviously good. A nation that is no longer seen as standing on the side of the rules can still be feared. It can no longer easily be believed. Third, isolation from the spirit of openness. America became America, in large part, because it long held a conviction: this country belongs to anyone willing to come here, follow the rules, and build a better life. From European immigrants to Asian immigrants to Latin American immigrants, openness was one of America's deepest sources of strength. In today's political climate, immigration is increasingly described as a threat, borders as a defensive perimeter to be sealed, newcomers as problems rather than possibilities. An America that has lost its open spirit still physically exists. In spirit, it is no longer the same country. Fourth, isolation from public and international responsibility. After World War II, America constructed an entire international architecture: security alliances, a trading system, international institutions, humanitarian aid, global cooperation. These did not merely serve others — they served America too. They made America the author of the rules, not the subject of them. When "America First" comes to mean accountable only to itself, calculating only short-term gains, America moves from the center of the system toward its outside. Historically, great powers decline not when their strength disappears, but when they are no longer willing to bear the cost of maintaining order. Finally, isolation from hope itself. For eighty years, no matter how turbulent the world became, many people believed: if everything else fails, there is still America. That belief, in itself, was America's greatest source of soft power. But if America begins to doubt its allies, its institutions, its immigrants, its partnerships, its responsibilities — even the values it once held — then what is being eroded is not just policy, but the image that lived in countless hearts. That lighthouse of the free world. That city upon a hill. That country that still shone in the dark. History tells us: a nation does not fall in a single day. First it loses trust. Then it loses direction. Finally, it loses itself. When loyalty supersedes institutions, when faction supersedes nation, when winning supersedes principle — the image built over eighty years may vanish within a single generation. And when that day comes, the question will no longer be whether America is powerful. The question will be: When America is no longer that America — who will be left to save it?

A Glimpse On The Top of Google

I am not a Google watcher, just an outsider who is somehow bothered by what Google has done in the past simply because personally I use so much of Google’s products and services, and from a prospective of “Managing the information of the world”, I fit perfectly in the trap that Google has built.

After Eric Schmidt told the press that he would like to, if possible, hold the CEO position of Google as long as it takes, nobody questioned the possibility of that at the time he made the statement. It turned out that, two out of the Google Trio, and actually the two founders of the company Google, both with strong technical and engineering background, have a different prospective and approach in the method that the company should be managed, and thus Eric Schmidt is now, in his own words, “Day-to-day adult supervision no longer needed!” (I am not arguing that Eric Schmidt does not have a strong technical background, a Computer Science PHD from UC Berkeley is at least equivalent, if not superior, to that of the academic credential from Page and Brin, as I am also from the North Bay rather than the South).

What surprised me, or stunned me, from the event of “Eric Schmidt Promotion” is that, even at Google, arguably the world’s most admired company in terms of business model, innovation, and talent management, things could get personal, and that could put the most admired company at risk.

There is no question about the intelligence of Brin and Page, as it seemed to have become a known fact with the success of Google that the two founded from the lab of Stanford. There is no doubt about the experience of Schmidt, as he has already become a seasoned and successful executive before he joined Google. There should be no worry about the fit of the founders and the CEO in what they called “Google Trio”, because we have witnessed over the past decade how Google grew and made other competitors envy. But, and this is a big BUT, when founders’ intelligence meets the mundane practice, when personal beliefs meet “the practice of the herd”, the problem of fit emerges.

The first event I witnessed the problem was when Google announced that the company will consider to exit from the China market in early 2010. I couldn’t help myself to wrote an article about that. At the time I could not believe that a company like Google can make such a careless and presumptuous decision similar to young kids fighting against each other. I have written much in my blog, so not to repeat myself here. I would like to believe, like what Schmidt said afterwards, that he personally does not want to quit China. I also believe that Schmidt may have sit against this decision because it was Brin who came out to the public and explained to the Google China employees how the company will handle the problem. It was a CEO’s job in this kind of circumstances, and Schmidt chose, or was forced to, sit behind. Now, when the dust of “Quit China Drama” is settling down, it is reasonable to assume (we as outsiders will probably never know what really happened during the discussions of the Google Trio) that Schmidt was sitting against the other two, and “adult supervision” didn’t go through at the beginning of the drama as Google made the announcement to quit China, but in the end came to effect as the stakes became higher and higher.

Schmidt may have shouldered the critisms of Steve Jobs to Google on behalf of the other two as well – this is my personal guess. As the most public figure, and assumed to be the leader of the company in the capacity of a CEO, Schmidt is at the par position of Steve Jobs. When Google decided to enter into the mobile phone business and thus became a competitor to Apple, Schmidt surely would understand the effect, in his capacity of sitting on the board of Apple, and the conflicts of interests. It would be really blunt to assume that Schmidt tried to take advantage rather than try to deliberately avoid the conflict of interest issue at the beginning. The real decision at Google, however, is made by the two founders who were in charge of the products and thus the strategy of the company. Schmidt here, even he may have raised the problem, may have been omitted in a deliberate way. But in the end he is shouldering the storm. And again this will add to the complexities and the difficulty at the top of the management of Google, and made the day to day management among the three an uneasy deed.

In the field of technology and product development, Brin and Page and the engineers alike are no doubt very smart and know exactly what they are doing. In the areas of dealing with human beings in a more matured manner, and in a broader sense such as dealing with the Chinese government, experiences in many cases will take over intelligence. There is no doubt that the two founders of Google possess strong beliefs, and their success with Google in the product and technology field has added to their belief that their way can work. But when come down to mingling through the ways to get things done and still make everybody happy, or at least the majority of the parties happy, adult experiences do count. Old school, believe it or not, has its value. And when the two become older, they will find out eventually that they can become part of the old school as well.

I personally have experienced very similar situations. I of course am not Eric Schmidt, not even close. And the people I was dealing with, although I would say they might be at the same intelligent level of Page and Brin, did not have the same capacity. But the problems I encountered were very similar. Adult parenting vs. naïve preoccupied minds became a day to day problem rather than a joy. It is good to have someone tap on your back and say, “good job kid”, but the kid himself rarely realize the value of this. I reserve my personal sympathy to what happened to Schmidt, as it seems to be like fighting a losing battle for him against the two founders, but he really did a great job in parenting Google for a decade and made the company grow so fast and become so powerful in such a short time.

Google Take On China

-->

It is the company that is going to take over the world takes on the country that is conquering the world, at least it seems to be.

Google announced in its official blog that it may have to close its operations in China due to a “highly sophisticated and targeted attack” on Google’s corporate infrastructure, and resulted in the loss of intellectual property from Google. In this announcement, Google is accusing the Chinese government, without clearly pointing the fingers though, that it was the Chinese government who orchestrated the attack. Dig further, however, the announcement is far more than a simple reaction to an attack.

Google has never learned how to do business in China, even with the help from former Mr. Chinas such as Kaifu Li and Shaoning Zhou. Both Mr. Li and Mr. Zhou are highly recognized and respected businessmen in the market. Google even went on the court with Microsoft for Mr. Li’s resignation from Microsoft to take a job at Google. Interference and strong positions from Mountain View heavily affected the local decision-making process, mistakes and lack of knowledge about Chinese internet users shadowed Google’s development in China for years. Mr. Zhou and Mr. Li finally resigned from Google largely because they need to spend their time more effectively with the people who are matured enough, and who are not so “smart” but are humble and cautious enough to help with their own careers. What left in Google China now are basically those who are pure corporate ladder climbers, local technology specialists who care nothing but their own computer screens, and or those “Google believers” who are yet to learn how to become a more matured and responsible person. Google wanted to copy its graduate school like atmosphere in their Beijing office, but it never did.

Google has been adopting what they found successful in other markets to China – more technology less artificial interference, more on building a sustainable business ecosystem less competing on price and surrendering quality of service, and more emphasis on the value for internet users and less on short term revenue and profits. All these are good, but enforcement has never been achieved. Careful steps and measurements have to be taken, but obviously in Google’s own China history, the company has little to tell. This is probably why when Google launched its own Chinese input product, it ran into a legal argument with sohu.com, when Google launched its automatic Chinese words recommendation in Google Toolbar, it ran into pornographic problems, and when Google is dealing with the Chinese books, Google is sued for copyright infringement in China. Among all these problems, the most important one, however, might be Google’s management of the distributor system.

The majority of Chinese internet advertisers are not as skillful and sophisticated as their American or international peers. They need someone to help them to mingle through Google’s highly complicated backend system to design their key word ads, manage their budget and ad plan, and monitor the results. In China, many internet distributors act between companies and customers to provide both such value added services, and retailing of internet advertisements. Google, however, has never treated such distributors as real business partners. The strict rules posted by Google for its distributors post high demand on the cashflow of those companies. But, a more severe problem is the Google officially authorized distributors actually do not enjoy such a premium status.

To become a Google distributor in China is a hard earned process. The company has to provide proof that it satisfies certain cash requirement, it must have certain number of people to manage both the customer service and sales, it has to provide timely reporting to Google so that Google can have the most up to date information about each distributor. When a company goes through all such processes and earn the Google Distributor status, it suddenly found out that, anyone in China who has an internationally recognized credit card can open a Google account, and start to sell Google services to Chinese customers. These individuals compete with those Google distributors in China, offering lower prices and better services, without Google’s authorization, and cut through the territory of those Google distributors.

When Mr. Zhou Shaoning joined the Google China operation in 2005, Mr. Zhou helped set up the current sales network in China. But since then and up till now, the problem occurred and complained by many Chinese distributors. Google’s attitude was, not so surprisingly, leave it open. Google officially recognized the problem, but has never taken serious steps to shut those “black distributors” down. The only reason for that was the resistance from the managers in Mountain View, not the demand from the China market.

These are a brief look at some of the management problems Google China faced. Due to all such problems and not knowing what to do properly from the headquarters, Google is facing declined market shares and more competition from Chinese companies. And Google does not know what to do exactly.

Come back to Google current standoff with the Chinese government, it was originated from the government’s censorship and filtering policy, which runs against Google’s corporate principles. Google is not alone, Facebook’s services have not been available in China for more than 6 months already. Government blocked Facebook’s service mainly because it links to some Chinese human rights activists and other anti-government organizations such as Falun sect. Government censorship here, has two levels. A few years ago, I (not with Google) personally have received phone call from someone telling me to block the news concerning the party chief of a Chinese province having a unusual close relationship with some young girls from the movie industry, the person who called threatened to use his personal connections to shut down the service if we don’t cooperate. This kind of political blackmail was very common, and sometimes ran together with the central government propaganda bureau. It is very annoying, and you can say “no” if you feel that you are on the right side. Other times such as the anti Chinese government organizations, that’s the bottom line from the government and you can not touch it. And here Google again has no clear strategy, and sometimes it just got really annoyed when all small issues added up together.

And so, here comes the great statement: A New Approach to China. It is very fair to say that if Google decides to exit China, it became a lose-lose case, not a win-win situation and happy ending. Even Google and the Chinese government somehow find a solution to stay together, the damage has already been made. This is exactly the kind of decision a matured business and manager will never make. But I would reasonably assume, even if Mr. Li Kaifu and Mr. Zhou Shaoning are still with Google, they have little say in the final decision making. Google’s headquarters are so arrogant that they will never tolerate for any such deeds, even if it is a very small thing. Probably the senior managers in Mountain View and the glorious trio are thinking that, facing a declining market share and tough competition in China, it is better for the company to leave and take a moral victory.

Google is jeopardizing its future for the current gain. China’s internet market for Google is not significant, at least from a revenue standpoint. Google has been investing in China to cultivate the business, with the cooperation with China Mobile, acquisitions of XunLei and other companies. All such investments have not seen any significant returns. The most successful investment, and probably it is what is keeping Google’s operation in China now, is Google’s investment, and the following exit of Baidu, China’s biggest search engine. Google invested in Baidu with US$ 5 million to take a 5% strategic stake in the company, and exited in 2006 with more than US$ 60 million return so that, as Google announced, the company can focus its own efforts in China without any conflicts of interests. Baidu’s investment has helped Google not losing money in China. But besides that, Google has not been successful in any of the company’s operations in China. And this might be the major cause that Google’s top management is trying to figure out what the company could do more.

China’s internet market is of high significance for Google’s future development though, not from a market size point of view, but more for Google to achieve its mission. China already has the most internet users, and the local market has developed features and trends that are different from any other markets in the world. Without China, Google’s network and information will never be complete. Google will lose its faith and royalty from Chinese employees and talents. Chinese software engineers have always been a significant contribution power in the software industry. Especially under the leadership of Mr. Li Kaifu, who previously managed the Microsoft Research Center. The local employees in Google’s Beijing office were not aware of the decision from Mountain View until they read the news by themselves. They were left behind. Google may think that with a proper settlement with each of the local employees, they will still be loyal to the company. Never. Even Google stays in China and keeps everyone, some of them will still feel abandoned, and the damage is hard to recover.

Well, when I am thinking about what other damages this incident could cause, obviously Chinese customers and distributors are not on Google’s list. The revenue is not significant for the company, and the distributors are those who are using Google to make money anyway, so why do they care for now? And thus the long term damage is there then, if Google exits, don’t come back because people will remember.

Or, on the other hand, maybe the people from Mountain View are indeed that smart that, with such an event, Google will surely increase its popularity and brand awareness among the Chinese internet users. Just like a few months ago, when a Chinese interest user found out that Google provides links to many pornographic sites, it helped Google increased its traffic many times. This time Google will leverage on the Chinese government’s action to increase its traffic again. But whether this kind of traffic increase is what the company has desired is another question.

While other people may praise Google for standing on the right side of history, I would argue that Google has made a mistake due to its own complacency, lack of knowledge and experience in China, and the company’s unwillingness to learn from a different culture and market.