US Election Season: Will “Getting Tough” on China Matter?

Every four years, US presidential elections role around and Americans are asked to pick a candidate who best represents their needs and ideals. Bread basked issues like jobs, the economy, and healthcare top the list. Foreign Policy? Well, it barely ranks. In most cases, it doesn’t even make the top 10.

It should not, therefore, come as a surprise that as the US enters this political season, America’s engagement with Asia won’t receive so much as a mention. The only exception, of course, is China. Every politician needs a bogey-man, and this time round, it’s the Middle Kingdom, or as, no doubt, it will be characterized in political ads and stump speeches as “the red threat rising in the East.” This is the kind of rhetoric that politicians like to bandy about. It’s good for public morale, but it has little bearing on the outcome of an election. So why do it?

To address this question and more, I sat down with Steve Okun, political pundit and senior advisor with McClarty Associates. In this week’s Inside Asia episode, we discuss the US voter, the perceived importance of Asia, and how — if at all — a Biden presidency might engage differently with China.

While anyone living outside the US has clearly observed, the world has changed dramatically over the past 30 years. Yet, to a shocking degree, the US perception of that world has not. I’m speaking specifically about the notion of US hegemony and the lasting view that somehow, the American way of life will imprint itself on all people beyond its borders. No doubt, US commercial prowess, technological achievements, and big brands have gone global, but they don’t always leave positive impression that Americans hope for.

Americans are partial to their way of seeing things. Take the “get tough” approach, for instance. From my early days as a cub reporter in Washington, DC up to the present, I’ve been intrigued at the need for US politicians to “get tough” on one issue or another.

Under Regan, it was about “getting tough” on drugs, which unleashed the memorable Nancy Regan “Just Say No” campaign. Under Clinton it was “get tough” on crime, which led to an egregious rise in incarcerations. The US represents 4.5 percent of the global population but it’s also home to 22 percent of the world’s prisoners. Shocking, right? With George W. Bush, it was all about “getting tough” on terrorism, which lead to the misguided invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Talk about a quagmire.

All of these examples would seem to suggest that “getting tough” doesn’t always work. So, as we turn the corner and come into the last 100 day stretch before the US election, do we really think “getting tough” on China is going to make a difference?

All you have to do is look at the antics of US politicians these past four years to see that bad behavior isn’t the sole domain of the Chinese government. There’s been plenty of bad behavior to go around and it leaves me wondering: What has it really accomplished?

As Steve points out in our discussion, in recent weeks there’s been a concerted effort by the Trump administration to demonize China in new and creative ways, not because “getting tough” on China will win him votes, but because sabotaging any remnants of good will between the two countries is a way of making it harder for the next President to mend ties. That’s cause for serious concern. Especially when you consider that constructive inter-dependence between the US and Chinese economies can do more for citizens of both nations and the world at large, versus splitting, one from the other.

What would happen if a 40-year policy of constructive engagement fell by the wayside and the US resorted to blaming China for all its woes? I can think of several unwanted effects, starting with a rise in cost of consumer goods. Everything from cars to computers would start to go up as US companies withdrew from China to rebuild manufacturing and supply-chains in higher-cost locations.

Then, of course, there’s the financial uncertainty. China has accumulated US debt over the past few decades and now owns over US$1 trillion in US Treasuries. That’s just 5% of the total US debt owned by foreign countries, but still, creates the kind of exposure that no one wants to see manipulated. It’s not a stretch to imagine a humiliated China using that power to devalue the US dollar or de-stabilize the US economy.

And what about technology? As we’ve pointed out in earlier episodes, artificial intelligence is nothing to be trifled with. Like nuclear power, designed and unleashed on the world without collaboration and controls means placing in jeopardy prospects for the human race. Like the US-Soviet nuclear arms race, do we really want to be in an AI race with the Chinese? I think not.

So how about this. Trump will do what Trump does to incite American hatred of China. What if Joe Biden took another tact, rising above the rhetorical fray, side-lining the “get tough” talk, and outlining a plan that holds China accountable, while offering explicit areas for joint cooperation. How outlandish would that be? The fact that it won’t make a difference to the American voter makes it all the more reasonable, does it not? But this is American-style politics, and what’s the point of it if you can’t stick it to your nemeses — real or not.

To listen to the full conversation, visit us at www.insideasiapodcast.com. And if you are not already a loyal Inside Asia listener, please subscribe today. Search for “Inside Asia” wherever you download and listen to podcasts. It’s entirely free and there are over 140 episodes to choose from. We cover everything from geopolitics to emerging trends. If you’re doing business in Asia, listen to what Inside Asia’s guests have to say. You won’t find a better business-focused podcast in Asia on Asia.