Zhang Jiadong: The Tea Party Movement Is Harmless to China-U.S. Relations
As a result of the period of adjustment and transition that America is undergoing in the areas of domestic and foreign affairs, the tea party, which has stirred up American political circles, is attracting the attention of many. However, our judgment of the tea party, and other U.S. domestic issues, might be affected by the mindset that we must anticipate and prepare for the worst. As for the conclusion drawn by some scholars that “the tea party is harmful to China-U.S. relations,” this writer certainly does not agree.
In view of the present situation, the tea party movement’s main supporters are not from the grassroots community, but are the social and economic elite. They emphasize that the free market guarantees personal and economic freedoms and they oppose government actions that interfere excessively with the economy. From these assertions, we can tell that these groups of supporters are not grassroots groups advocating for high taxes and high welfare benefits, but are instead the American middle class and the socioeconomic elite — the conservative faction of the conservative faction. Therefore, the political assertions of the tea party movement and the traditional assertions of the Republican Party are similar. Simply put, the movement is a conservative revolt within the Republican camp, the primary goal of which is to take the place of the Republican Party. While they oppose the Democratic Party, tea partiers are actually breaking apart the Republican vote. Opinion polls show that at present, only 18 percent of Americans consider themselves to be members of the tea party, so the tea party movement is certainly no competition for the two main parties; it’s just not successful enough. From the perspective of conservative Republicans, however, there may be much more still to lose.
Thus, this writer thinks that the tea party movement is a sort of domestic political revolt within the United States, or even a sort of low-intensity social revolution. It will not have too much of a negative impact on China-U.S. relations, and it might even be beneficial. Tea partiers not only oppose the stance of the Democratic Party, but furthermore, they are dissatisfied with America’s entire political structure as a whole; they are especially dissatisfied with the excessive power of the country’s federal government. Under these circumstances, the tea party movement has put pressure on the current U.S. government, including the president and Congress. It is unlikely the U.S. could pass these problems onto China. Since what the tea party movement opposes is government interference in social and economic matters, few would approve of any actions that would exert pressure on China in order to boost the U.S. economy. Therefore, although we cannot say that the tea party movement is beneficial to China, at the very least, it presents no clear harm.
When analyzing China-U.S. relations, and particularly when analyzing the impact of changes in America’s domestic politics and foreign policy on China, many people like to be suspicious and harbor bias. Due to the feeling that America views China as a competitive adversary, or in private, even believes that the U.S. and China are strategic enemies, many Chinese feel that any American act — regardless of whether it is actually global, public, bilateral between China and the U.S., or beneficial to China — is disadvantageous for China. This methodology obliterates the distinction between national interest and international interest and ignores the distinction between hegemony and international common good. The result: When the U.S. leans to the left, stressing employment opportunities for workers, emphasizing balanced trade, and advocating use of political tactics to interfere in economic activity, then they say it is detrimental to China; but when America leans to the right and advocates for smaller government, a free economy and free trade, a balanced budget, and the opposite of all the aforementioned basic viewpoints, they still say it is detrimental to China. It is a little hard to distinguish right from wrong like this; emotions are in control.
In the past we often emphasized that the United States has the world’s best security environment. Yet Americans are always thinking of threat and risk; they remain vigilant in peacetime. In contrast, China’s international security environment is almost the worst in the world. Not only is it surrounded by powerful countries, but all along China’s periphery, conflicts and disputes have gone on nearly uninterrupted. Yet Chinese people are still some of the world’s most optimistic citizens. Therefore, strategically speaking, we should anticipate and prepare for the worst, or at the very least, remain vigilant in peacetime. This is right. But when analyzing concrete issues, we cannot let this “anticipate and prepare for the worst” mindset influence our objective judgment. If we act in this way — overly concerned about danger — it is harmful and without benefit to China.
(The author is an associate professor at Fudan University’s Center for American Studies.)
In view of the present situation, the tea party movement’s main supporters are not from the grassroots community, but are the social and economic elite. They emphasize that the free market guarantees personal and economic freedoms and they oppose government actions that interfere excessively with the economy. From these assertions, we can tell that these groups of supporters are not grassroots groups advocating for high taxes and high welfare benefits, but are instead the American middle class and the socioeconomic elite — the conservative faction of the conservative faction. Therefore, the political assertions of the tea party movement and the traditional assertions of the Republican Party are similar. Simply put, the movement is a conservative revolt within the Republican camp, the primary goal of which is to take the place of the Republican Party. While they oppose the Democratic Party, tea partiers are actually breaking apart the Republican vote. Opinion polls show that at present, only 18 percent of Americans consider themselves to be members of the tea party, so the tea party movement is certainly no competition for the two main parties; it’s just not successful enough. From the perspective of conservative Republicans, however, there may be much more still to lose.
Thus, this writer thinks that the tea party movement is a sort of domestic political revolt within the United States, or even a sort of low-intensity social revolution. It will not have too much of a negative impact on China-U.S. relations, and it might even be beneficial. Tea partiers not only oppose the stance of the Democratic Party, but furthermore, they are dissatisfied with America’s entire political structure as a whole; they are especially dissatisfied with the excessive power of the country’s federal government. Under these circumstances, the tea party movement has put pressure on the current U.S. government, including the president and Congress. It is unlikely the U.S. could pass these problems onto China. Since what the tea party movement opposes is government interference in social and economic matters, few would approve of any actions that would exert pressure on China in order to boost the U.S. economy. Therefore, although we cannot say that the tea party movement is beneficial to China, at the very least, it presents no clear harm.
When analyzing China-U.S. relations, and particularly when analyzing the impact of changes in America’s domestic politics and foreign policy on China, many people like to be suspicious and harbor bias. Due to the feeling that America views China as a competitive adversary, or in private, even believes that the U.S. and China are strategic enemies, many Chinese feel that any American act — regardless of whether it is actually global, public, bilateral between China and the U.S., or beneficial to China — is disadvantageous for China. This methodology obliterates the distinction between national interest and international interest and ignores the distinction between hegemony and international common good. The result: When the U.S. leans to the left, stressing employment opportunities for workers, emphasizing balanced trade, and advocating use of political tactics to interfere in economic activity, then they say it is detrimental to China; but when America leans to the right and advocates for smaller government, a free economy and free trade, a balanced budget, and the opposite of all the aforementioned basic viewpoints, they still say it is detrimental to China. It is a little hard to distinguish right from wrong like this; emotions are in control.
In the past we often emphasized that the United States has the world’s best security environment. Yet Americans are always thinking of threat and risk; they remain vigilant in peacetime. In contrast, China’s international security environment is almost the worst in the world. Not only is it surrounded by powerful countries, but all along China’s periphery, conflicts and disputes have gone on nearly uninterrupted. Yet Chinese people are still some of the world’s most optimistic citizens. Therefore, strategically speaking, we should anticipate and prepare for the worst, or at the very least, remain vigilant in peacetime. This is right. But when analyzing concrete issues, we cannot let this “anticipate and prepare for the worst” mindset influence our objective judgment. If we act in this way — overly concerned about danger — it is harmful and without benefit to China.
(The author is an associate professor at Fudan University’s Center for American Studies.)
Previous article![]( "America without the Shackles of Fear")
