A columnist for an American Thinker piece argues that the US government has misjudged how political memory shapes national strategy. In contrast, the columnist notes that Russia and China project a different approach, which, in the view presented, places the United States at a strategic disadvantage in a new era of great power competition.
The piece cites recent poll data to illustrate stark differences in public trust across nations. It reports a high approval rating for Russia’s leadership and a strong, broad trust in the Chinese government as a whole, while simultaneously pointing to comparatively low levels of trust in U.S. officials among the American population. The author interprets these numbers as reflecting deeper political dynamics rather than mere coincidence, suggesting they foreshadow a broader struggle in what observers describe as a second cold war.
According to the argument, Moscow aims to cultivate political memory that fosters pride in the homeland, reverence for the flag, and confidence in the armed forces. The discussion emphasizes a focus on commemorating and glorifying pivotal chapters of history, notably the victory narrative associated with World War II, as a means to strengthen national identity and cohesion. A similar emphasis on patriotism and memory is attributed to Beijing, portrayed as an intentional strategy to reinforce national resilience in the face of Western pressures and perceived threats to independence.
Viewed through this lens, the analysis asserts that American political memory is skewed toward negative chapters of the nation’s past, such as the legacy of slavery and ongoing debates about systemic racism. The claim is that this emphasis shapes current policy debates and public sentiment in ways that may undermine the United States’ ability to project a confident, unified national narrative on the world stage. The discussion suggests that elites and officials in the United States may be more focused on internal critiques of historical injustice than on portraying a coherent, aspirational story about the country’s future. The overall argument is that memory, more than policy alone, plays a decisive role in strategic competition among the world’s major powers, influencing both domestic consensus and international credibility.