Apologies for being long winded, I don’t have enough time for shorter comments today.

When you said “She should not be doing actions abroad that have implications for U.S. foreign policy.” I think that this sounds like an opinion and an unsupported claim. On what basis can someone do “actions abroad” at all then? All actions by all Americans abroad have “have implications for U.S. foreign policy.” Some have more “implications” than others but it’s not only her right, it’s her job. I disagree with her on many issues and I wish she would be replaced, but how can we objectively measure what you’re claiming here should not be done? It really sounds like isolationism - that she just should not do it and that doing it is somehow beyond her mandate, and it follows that lesser Americans like the rest of us unelected folks should also not do it. That’s a level of isolationism that exceeds even Thoreau in his criticism of the Mexican-American war. Talking abroad as a person in power where it may avert a war seems provocative but the most basic kind of interventional action allowed for such a person.

> The question is whether in doing so she is flouting her responsibility as a representative of the US to not undermine US foreign policy.

That’s a new question and a good one. I’m glad you ask it, thank you for taking the time to engage.

The separation of powers encourages dissent against policy or actions by other coequal branches of government. On what grounds do you think she is flouting a responsibility? Which specific responsibilities is she flouting?

I’m not sure what you mean exactly, so I withhold any judgement. She may be doing that and I am plainly open to that option, there is simply some clarity here that I am missing from the question.

> It seems plainly obvious to me that she is and it carries the potential to damage US interests.

It is not plainly obvious to me. I would like very much to understand your position because I sense some frustration that means I am blind to something important to you. It seems like pandering to her base in some ways, but it also seems like one of the better American interventions in the last twenty years. No weapons, very small fiscal expense, positive PR for American values, potentially heading off a similar conflict to Ukraine before it starts, and perhaps other positive things like cheaper semiconductor production for Americans not made in mainland China? I presume someone did some game theory analysis and concluded that the Chinese make a lot of threats they don’t back up ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%27s_final_warning ), and by conceding to a bully, the bully is empowered.

> It is US policy to maintain a stalemate over encroachment on Taiwan sovereignty.

In this, I think we agree - this seems unobjectionable but I admit I am not a foreign policy expert by training, only by working abroad for many years, including with relevant parties here.

> This policy is maintained by careful adherence to time-tested conventions and behavioral constraints as well as calculated actions to maintain the stability of this equilibrium.

What if they ran the numbers and decided they needed her to do this to maintain that stalemate? By showing that there is dissent internally, this may encourage China to try to work with Biden to censure Pelosi, bringing them back to the discussion table at a time (Ukraine war) that they seem to indicate they want to move on Taiwan.

> As a representative of the US government, her actions abroad can and will be interpreted as a reflection of US policy,

Maybe. It’s clear she dissents from Biden’s official policy as I understand it. She can also be interpreted as a reflection of the values of the (capitalist) democratic system which allows for dissent from the highest executive leadership.

>therefore she should be bound to not interfere with explicit US policy, except through legislative actions available to her.

Ah that’s a policy suggestion that I can’t agree with unless there is a specific proposal. Do you have one? It might be that I do agree with your view but I already believe there is more than one way to view her actions and the U.S. policy generally.

> Willfully undermining US's strategy (of an equilibrium with China over Taiwan) by unilateral action is treasonous (for lack of a better word).

Calling her actions treasonous when Biden himself agrees personally seems like a stretch. It’s clearly a coordinated motion by the Democrats, not only to win votes at home but also abroad. Russian and Chinese intervention seems much worse than American when we consider her gesture.

Additionally, I don’t think you have shown she is undermining it, especially if U.S. (e.g.: intelligence, diplomats, etc) thinks China may soon take action to break the stalemate. I’m not sure if this is the case but that seems like something that is being discussed. If China is going to break it with violence, it is better to change the norms slowly with diplomacy. It is especially better if the expected value of a war now includes the calculation of kicking off a major conflict with the biggest and best navy in the world, not just a tiny island. As a side note the tiny island did very well in the last hot war and they clearly managed to help create this stalemate. We probably could learn something from them when they ask for our help, it’s probably not something to dismiss.

> You said it yourself, her actions could plausibly kick off world war three.

There is a flip side: inaction presents danger as well. If we are not regularly taking steps to ensure peace, we may also find ourselves in the Third World War. The Cold War over African infrastructure (primarily between U.S. and China) is underway now. Peace requires work, constantly.

> The fact that people are cheering her on is absolutely insane to me.

It seems like you have lost faith in American soft and hard power, and you think China will not only start a hot war, that they might win it? Is that fair? I’m definitely against a war with China but diplomatic action is precisely how I think we avoid it: we tell them the expected value of their actions and put it on display for the entire world to see. If they pull the trigger, America will have the moral upper hand and we clearly have the military superiority. It will probably be a completely stupid and pointless war, and it will wipe out huge number of innocent lives. Pelosi herself will probably escape unharmed.

> Signalling has completely overwhelmed our collective ability to think rationally on complicated issues, to the detriment of the world.

I agree. However we have definitional disagreements.
Diplomatic action is not merely (social media or media) signaling, it is critical for the functioning of the world. This is within her mandate, and it is clearly to counter China’s rumbling about taking Taiwan by force. They’re the little guy and China is the bully. If they take Taiwan, it will damage the American economy immensely, to say nothing of rights or values. The economic impact of a war in Taiwan would be even worse than the direct human cost.

> If WW3 does happen, I expect social media will play a non-trivial role in bringing it about.

Absolutely, the cynicism it brings to the world is harmful. That’s what free speech gets us - I think the trade offs are worth it, in the end free societies will (with constant effort!) triumph over illiberal societies. It will be with a high cost but it is worth the price. I expect to go quickly if nuclear arms are used and I accept this as a risk.

We should dare to risk, we cannot live freely without risk. Live free or die, and all that.