Danielle Pletka challenges the Romney campaign to be even more ideological and foolish on China than they have been:

Here’s what you might have said: The equation with China is pretty simple: either you believe, as Mr. Obama does, that China is a rising power to our failing one, or you believe we cannot afford to subjugate our economy and our morals to a dictatorship that seeks to dominate the Pacific and global business [bold mine-DL]. Either you believe there’s an “appropriate balance” between U.S. interests and human rights, or you believe U.S. interests are embodied by a commitment to human rights.

In other words, one either believes that there is a trade-off between pursuing the promotion of certain ideals and securing national interests, or one believes in a lot of nonsense. Rubin could not be bothered to distinguish between “values” and interests, and now Pletka is saying that U.S. interests are embodied by “values.” What sense is the Romney campaign supposed to make of this? Why would they want to listen to it, much less adopt as their campaign rhetoric?

China does seek to be the dominant regional power in East Asia. I don’t think that’s in dispute. The idea that it “seeks to dominate the Pacific” is alarmist even by the standards of AEI.