Perhaps most importantly, domestic politics in both China and the United States are making it increasingly difficult to undertake the kind of constructive engagement policies that could avert an escalation of the strategic rivalry to more hostile levels. In Washington, the very notion of “engagement” with Beijing is denounced by those who equate it with a strategy aimed at liberalizing China, which they say has irrevocably failed in ways that compromised U.S. interests and security. In a recent article, scholar Michael Beckley warned against “reengagement” as perhaps “the most dangerous [approach] of all because it neither satisfies Chinese demands nor deters Beijing from taking what it wants by force.” This prematurely dismisses the possibility that it might actually accomplish both. Moreover, despite making a rhetorical distinction between engagement and “appeasement,” Beckley comes close to equating them with each other and with “capitulation” to China. In any event, it is misleading to characterize and reject engagement as a strategy; it is instead best understood simply as a tactic—synonymous with diplomatic interaction—and a necessary mechanism for pursuing American interests.

Yet, it has become politically risky for anyone in Washington to advocate for normal diplomatic interaction with Beijing on the grounds that it is inimical to U.S. interests and rewards Chinese bad behavior. Moreover, China is widely portrayed as a fundamental ideological and systemic challenger to the United States, requiring U.S. policy to adopt an adversarial, “all-of-government” and even “all-of-society” response to confronting the threat it poses. Although this mindset is helping to fuel the antagonism in U.S.-China relations, the delicate electoral balance and political volatility in the United States make it unlikely that any American leader of either party will be prepared in the foreseeable future to assume the political risks of significantly diverging from this approach toward China.

On the Chinese side, Xi faces no comparable electoral constraints. However, historically, Chinese elite politics has been even more potentially volatile, and a growing accumulation of domestic and foreign policy challenges has reportedly left Xi vulnerable to internal criticism, if not latent challenges to his authority or at least his policy direction. Moreover, given the intensity and centrality of nationalism in Chinese politics and the prevailing belief that the United States poses the most significant external threat to China, Xi can ill afford to risk being perceived as “soft” in confronting or responding to that threat. Accordingly, it would be neither politically easy nor personally instinctual for him to advocate an accommodative approach to Washington.

The Taiwan issue is a perfect illustration of all these systemic elements of the U.S.-China strategic rivalry. Historically, it was the linchpin of establishing relations between the United States and the PRC. Now, because of profound changes in the strategic environment and the balance of power in East Asia over the past forty years, the Taiwan issue has become the fulcrum of the U.S.-China competition in the region. Both sides have deemed it a vital interest, and each side blames the other exclusively for heightening the risk of conflict that now prevails across the Taiwan Strait. Furthermore, domestic politics in both Washington and Beijing have proscribed a more flexible approach. This stalemate only increases the potential for escalation to a serious crisis or conflict.

So, this is the bilateral strategic context in which Washington and Beijing are ostensibly seeking to build a relationship that will not “veer into conflict.” Both sides see themselves in a zero-sum competition and an existential ideological struggle. The pursuit of détente is considered illusory and a sign of weakness. The United States and China have inflated perceptions about the other side’s strategic intentions. They find it easier to exaggerate the threat, accuse the other side of subverting constructive engagement, and blame the other for self-inflicted vulnerabilities than to consider accommodation or compromise seriously. In any event, domestic politics leaves little room for successfully advocating the latter. Instead, girding for intense competition across-the-board appears to be the only reasonable and viable option. Neither Washington nor Beijing seems able to recognize or be willing to acknowledge all of these symmetries.

It is hard to see the exit ramp that will allow the United States and China to escape this current path toward an adversarial relationship and instead find a way toward reciprocal accommodation and peaceful coexistence. The circumstances are reminiscent of the famous line in the classic film Cool Hand Luke, “What we’ve got here is…failure to communicate.” What can break the cycle of miscommunication, mutual miscomprehension, and mutual recrimination between the United States and China? What could?

Paul Heer is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. He served as National Intelligence Officer for East Asia from 2007 to 2015. He is the author of Mr. X and the Pacific: George F. Kennan and American Policy in East Asia (Cornell University Press, 2018).