Let’s see… right now we’ve got a global food crisis; two wars and a primary race that might never end, not to mention dropping home prices in the U.S.; a farcical election in Zimbabwe; continuing plight in the Congo; and, the media staple: drama surrounding the Beijing Olympics.

Let’s say, hypothetically, we run all these stories in a serious international magazine, what should our lead be? The editors at The Economist, faced with that question, chose a story about Chinese nationalism. But what to put on the cover? I know! What says “Chinese nationalism” better than an angry cartoon dragon? But don’t make him too angry, that would be demeaning.

I wrote at the beginning of the year about antagonistic rhetoric in Western media and pointed toward another Economist cover featuring Mao wearing a Christmas cap. I didn’t expect things to end up like this. A lot of things have happened since my last post, and I’ve been largely reticent, partly because my colleagues have done such a great job summarizing the issues and putting forth suggestions, but also partly because I’ve just been too upset to write about it.

As a bystander, I feel saddened by the whole debacle. But as a Chinese-American, I just feel confused. Am I angry at American protesters because of my Chinese heritage? Am I angry at Chinese protesters because of my American upbringing? Is my anger based on actual principles, or does it is stem from ethnic or cultural pride? The former is forgivable; the latter is nationalism.

Nationalism is the word of the week. The Grace Wang episode shows that we, on both sides of the Pacific, have moved past discussion and into the dangerous territory of choosing sides, where clear battle lines on blurry issues, and where ostracism is the price of equivocation.

In times like these, appeals to reason fall largely on deaf ears. The shift in rhetoric and media coverage right now in China and the West could be best characterized as polarization, the tendency for people to become more extreme in their thinking after deliberating with other like-minded individuals. It is a form of escalation that leads inevitably to radicalism, extremism, and nationalism.

For example (for those following the headlines, consider this review): the Chinese government seals off Tibet and its media refuses to acknowledge Tibetan casualties in the ensuing melee. Protesters in Paris then try to extinguish the Olympic flame. Chinese protesters boycott Carrefour in response. CNN, desperate for ratings, in turn calls Chinese leaders goons and thugs. China, desperate for compliments, turns to North Korea for a pat on the back at the end of the contentious torch relay. And in the Western media? An angry cartoon dragon.

The result of all this is a complete distrust of all media on both sides. Western journalists have to qualify when their source is Xinhua or state-controlled media (not that Xinhua was a paragon of reportage to begin with); Chinese that usually look Westward now disavow foreign publications, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The Economist article is right about a few things, among them nationalism: that it could turn on the Chinese government as quickly as it turned against the West. It is also correct when it says:

Western policymakers also face a difficult balancing act. They need to recognise that China has come a long way very quickly, and offers its citizens new opportunities and even new freedoms, though these are still far short of what would constitute democracy. Yet that does not mean they should pander to China’s pride.

But it is making a biased judgment when it proclaims (emphasis added for later clarification):

Chinese rage has focused on the alleged “anti-China” bias of the Western press, which is accused of ignoring violence by Tibetans in the unrest in March. From this starting-point China’s defenders have gone on to denounce the entire edifice of Western liberal democracy as a sham. Using its tenets to criticise China is, they claim, sheer hypocrisy. They cite further evidence of double standards: having exported its dirtiest industries to China, the West wants the country to curb its carbon emissions, potentially impeding its growth and depriving newly well-off Chinese of their right to a motor car….

China’s rage is out of all proportion to the alleged offences.

I think it is exactly in proportion to the alleged offenses. What did you think was going to happen when you accuse a country of things that are just plain untrue? It is true that the latest numbers show China as the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases but it is also true that based on per capita emissions, China ranks ninth, much lower than America and developed countries in Western Europe. In a piece for the New York Times, Jared Diamond pointed out that “Per capita consumption rates in China are still about 11 times below [the United States]….” That means each American consumes as much as 11 Chinese, and even with 4 times the population, China still uses (and almost certainly wastes) less than America. So when Bush says something like, “Countries like China and India are experiencing rapid economic growth—and that’s good for their people and it’s good for the world. This also means that they are emitting increasingly large quantities of greenhouse gases—which has consequences for the entire global climate,” (Source) it could be taken the wrong way. All that coming from the leader of one of the only countries on Earth to have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol? Yeah, I’d say that’s hypocritical, with a hint of double standard.

What’s worse than being antagonistic and false, the ticker tape of populist headlines eclipses the fact that there are indeed cautious steps being taken to mediate the Tibet issue. (I hesitate to say solve because I’m not an optimist.) China has met with Tibetan envoys, and, though they did not resolve any pressing issues, they have agreed to meet again. We must remember that progress is slow and fragile.

On the Chinese front, the monomaniacal debate over Tibet draws our attention away from more pressing matters like the safety of the Olympics. If questions about Barack Obama’s refusal to wear a flag pin can be called a “distraction,” then, in the grand scheme of things, being worried about whether or not athletes will reveal pro-Tibet paraphernalia on the award podium falls neatly into that category.

Terrorism is the largest threat to the Olympics, which is something both Western and Chinese media can agree on. Because the Olympics has been built to represent so much, a terrorist attack could be devastating not only to the people in China, but also to China’s international image, Chinese pride, Chinese economy, and ultimately Chinese stability.

The Olympics has a complicated history with politics (’36, ’56) and terrorism (’72, ’96), but the Beijing Olympics, due to the endless hype, must seem like a two-for-one coupon to those wanting to proclaim a message. Whether or not you believe the reports about China’s discovery and investigation of a terrorist plot planned to take place during the Olympics, the possibility of terrorism is on the minds of every athletic delegation, and remains a startling possibility.

Right now, we are at a crossroads. We can continue to allow ignorance and extremism to dictate our actions and attitudes toward the Olympics, China, and Tibet, or we can attempt to salvage something from this discussion by educating ourselves and inviting debate. Joining a Facebook group called “Free Tibet” won’t help pass any pro-Tibet legislation. Appending “♥ China” to your MSN description means nothing if you love China out of a distrust for the West. Some students at USC, my alma mater, seem intent on driving the debate backward (or at least keeping it going nowhere), but there are those, most notably Grace Wang, who seem bent on fostering debate, even if it is to her own massive disadvantage.

H.L. Mencken wrote in 1920, “Man’s natural instinct, in fact, is never toward what is sound and true; it is toward what is specious and false. Let any great nation of modern times be confronted with two conflicting propositions, the one grounded upon the utmost probability and reasonableness and the other upon the most glaring error, and it will almost invariably embrace the latter.”

It’s an old quote but ask yourself this: Why do people keep quoting someone like Mencken in modern times? That’s easy. Because we keep proving him right.