> Moral and rights talk, in a manner that treats them as unconditionally overriding principles, is the exclusive domain of the privileged.

This claim seems backwards as a general rule. For one easy example: In jail support, prisoners, including political prisoners but also common criminals, often speak of their rights. Often their rights being violated is a problem precisely because they are not privileged and the basic rights, which are the responsibility of the state, are not being upheld. With PREA as an example, the state agrees with this discourse. There is a bottom of the barrel, and when we speak about rights we are really scraping the bottom of that barrel. Rights are important most of all or especially for the least privileged in society because usually those people are directly faced with the organs of the state. The rights based discourse is of course the domain of the literate, but the exercise of those rights is important for everyone which by definition includes the unprivileged. I suppose we could debate which group is larger but that’s the logical fallacy of the majority…

> We just can't avoid considering our actions in a space of possible reactions and then judge the utility of the outcome

I agree. I don’t think there is avoidance here. Pelosi flew on a military aircraft which Biden as Commander in Chief could have stopped. This fact is a giant hint that we don’t have all the information. If she had flown commercial, it would be a different signal. Chinese commentators have noticed this (e.g: https://nitter.net/CarlZha/status/1554720310611812354 ) fact. How do you explain this detail?

Furthermore the logic of conflict you present (as I understand it) seems like a game of tic tac toe rather than chess or go. It certainly it is a standard lower than the decision theory taught at the Rand Corp (ha!) or practiced in Department of State. With what I take from your comments the way to win any conflict with a U.S. following these rules is simply to make a huge threat, and the bully will win, almost always. There is no risk worth nuclear war, so we shall have no freedom of navigation in the “South China Sea” as China regularly says no and makes serious (sounding) threats.

Alternatively we can view their threats as a reaction to basic international law, and we can push back on their threats not on a rights based discourse alone but also an expected value outcome in terms of economic cost. They won’t carry out their threats and indeed they did not start world war three. Your strategy as proposed (and again I admit I may misunderstand) doesn’t seem like a good strategy for many reasons.

> It is easy to say democracy is worth dying for when you're not the one that will be dying.

Sure.
I have been to war zones and risked my own life to be there. I assert that you need not take this risk to hold any position. My implicit question was if you agree in any case. It’s easy and yet you don’t take a position. That’s fair but maybe it would be helpful to say that? I don’t see agreement here so again, the risks here seem too much for you, and as a result there is a simple way to beat your diplomatic strategy every time in game theory simulations.

> The win is not to engage in it.

This is true for a war, on that we agree - though I suspect America will have at least one person standing. A technical win with high costs which is probably fair to dismiss as hardly a win at all.

Still I think you avoid the direct question: what about the need to engaging in peace building where it may risk war and where inaction also risks war?

> But perhaps this is some surreptitious tactic to confound China's ability to predict US responses.

What is the standard of evidence I could meet to demonstrate that this is likely or actually happening? It seems clear (say, a preponderance of evidence but not yet beyond a reasonable doubt) to me based on the use of military aircraft, Biden’s personal statements, the history of empty Chinese threats, and other details published in the popular press.

> But that's not how it looks from where I'm sitting and I can only judge by the information I have.

Thank you for acknowledging that the core problem is that we simply don’t know enough. It’s hard to have a functional democracy when this is true, and yet diplomatic action requires secrecy from the general public (at least for a time, and not forever) in tense moments. If you don’t have confidence in government officials at all, I can see how it would be hard to give them the benefit of the doubt.

> There are legal structures in place for each branch to influence or constrain the other branches.

Which legal structures do you assert that she isn’t free and legally allowed to do this travel? Your goal posts seem to be shifting. We already agreed she has a right, so how can you assert now that she doesn’t, and that it is somehow illegal or against any rule of conduct for members of the House?

> Operating outside of these constraints to influence US policy is just to declare yourself an enemy of the constitution.

I’m not sure that the latter follows the former. You haven’t shown that she is operating outside of any constraints, nor that “influence US policy” is a thing that shouldn’t be done. Again, on what basis do you make that claim? Do you assert that the various democrats and republicans who visited Ukraine should have a political litmus test, to see if they are influencing U.S. policy in some (supposed and implied negative) manner? From my perspective this is a core part of their job.

Iran-Contra was bad but in the end, I don’t think any of the people involved caught treason charges. Did they? I might be wrong here as I am definitely not an expert in Oliver North’s crimes. Was anyone directly involved and convicted of any crime an elected official? If not, I think the comparison doesn’t stand but it does raise a question about the actions of unelected people. Regardless, Arms smuggling is materially different than a visit to meet with political counterparts and constituents.

In summary, we probably agree about a few things here, but we are operating in a vacuum regarding their analysis process and thus we lack information. There are hints that this is happening and I perceive your cynicism to be overpowering your confidence that this is indeed happening.

Your view appears to be that all of this is empty virtual signaling, and I partially agree - but that’s the pandering to her base, many of which can’t engage in the economic or conflict analysis by game theory when reading a news paper. So the rights based discourse is easier as a summary, and it is obviously (to me anyway) not the full analysis leading to her actions. Do you seriously contend that this is merely a P.R. exercise with no analysis and that military transport is simply free for use to do Twitter virtual signaling?