Why is China So Targeted in the Presidential Elections?
The second U.S. presidential debate took place on the morning of Oct. 17, Beijing time. During the debate, the candidates mentioned China as many as 20 times, mostly in terms of the economy and trade. The sluggish U.S. economy has turned China into a target for both political parties as they try to evade responsibility and divert domestic problems.
Ohio has become the front line for the newest wave of election competition, with both candidates playing the “China card”. This swing state is hotly contested and is of strategic importance for the election. As 13 percent of the population of Ohio works in the manufacturing industry, both campaign teams see cracking down on the great manufacturing power of China as a useful tool for gaining a favorable impression from the electorate of Ohio. Therefore, since September, Obama and Romney have taken turns appearing in Ohio and throwing money into campaign advertising with a focus on China.
For example, advertisements by Romney's team blame Obama for not accusing China of currency manipulation, which they say has led to the outflow of millions of jobs overseas. They accuse him of sitting back and watching China “steal” various ideas and techniques from Americans and apply these to the development of its own industries, including computers and aircraft.
On the other hand, Obama’s camp attacks Romney for cultivating the image that he is against trade with China, even while building up his person fortune by investing in it. Further, having found a vulnerable point in Romney’s 2011 tax returns and personal income reports, Obama criticized Romney’s previous trust fund investments in the China National Offshore Oil Cooperation and Youku.
Despite the frequent and eloquent tongue-lashings toward China, a harsh policy toward China is little more than a strategy developed by the candidates during an election year in order to foster a tough and unyielding image. In reality, they do not have hugely divergent policies toward China.
Obama’s campaign has focused on talk of gaining back American jobs that the manufacturing industry lost to China and on strengthening the intensity of investigations of China in the international trade arena. On the other hand, Romney’s most conspicuous remark has been that he will label China as a “currency manipulator” the first day he moves into the White House. Further, he has criticized Obama’s overly mild policy toward China in terms of employment, military, human rights, etc.
Needless to say, compared with these verbal attacks from Romney, as the current president Obama has better access to and can allocate more administrative resources when playing the “China card”. For example, on Sept. 17 the Obama administration requested a consultation with the World Trade Organization and accused the Chinese government of providing subsidies of at least U.S. $1 billion to their auto and auto parts export industries from 2009 to 2011. On Sept. 29, Obama gave orders to prevent a Chinese owned company from purchasing a U.S. wind farm project.
In recent years, the rapid, continued growth of the Chinese economy coupled with the decline in America’s economy and power has subtly changed how the presidents and candidates talk about China and related issues.
In the past, presidents and candidates from both parties often played the “China card,” but China was always in the position of being scolded, educated or even assisted. For example, in 1999, Clinton condescendingly offered to help China better integrate with the world. In 2008, George W. Bush claimed that America would help China make better use of green energy. However, when it comes to Obama and Romney, such offers no longer exist. Obama has even expressed worries that the U.S. might fall behind China and become “Number Two” in the world.
This shows that both political parties have admitted that China has risen in power and influence. According to both parties, the rise of a peaceful and prosperous China is beneficial to the U.S. This should be the starting point of the next U.S. president’s new China policy for the next four years.
Although we see that both Obama and Romney’s attitudes toward China have changed, most Americans still hold on to a belief in so-called “American Exceptionalism.” Romney’s election slogan is “Believe in America,” which according to what he expresses in his autobiography “No Apology” could more accurately be “Believe in American Exceptionalism.” In his autobiography, he analyzes the decline of other historical superpowers, including imperial China, and explains why America will not suffer from this same decline, even in the coming post-economic crisis era. Whether or not this is purely for campaign purposes, his position undoubtedly mirrors the deep-rooted psychological attachment of many Americans, especially older generations, to the position of the U.S. as a superpower.
Because of this sentiment, President Obama must develop a similar, unequivocal attitude of believing in American supremacy, particularly when dealing with domestic issues and political activities such as elections, despite the practical reality of a multipolar world order.
Sino-American relations are without any doubt among the most important and complicated bilateral relations in the world. Through the lens of the U.S. election, it is easier to observe the complex attitudes of Americans toward China, especially in terms of the changing power relations between China and the U.S. The complexity of this mentality is even more apparent after the 2008 financial crisis. It has turned out to be a surprise to both Americans and Chinese that the situation could change so quickly.
This common practice of criticizing China while canvassing demonstrates the obvious similarities between the two candidates and their campaigns. But what is the logic behind it? In reality, it reflects the mentality of American voters.
According to Elizabeth Economides, the director of Asian Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, with the rise of China’s power and international position the next U.S. president will have to work with China to confront nearly all global challenges, from Iran and North Korea to global financial regulation and climate change.
According to research published by the Pew Research Center on Sept. 19, two-thirds of Americans think China and the U.S. have a sound relationship. 55 percent of the general public agrees that the U.S. should build strong ties with China, while up to 84 percent of government officials, scholars, businessmen and other “expert” groups hold this view. Nevertheless, most Americans still regard China as their competitor and rival, and 56 percent of the public and 49 percent of the experts think America should remain tough and uncompromising in areas of trade and the economy. Moreover, only a small percentage of people believe China is reliable.
However, it is worth noting that of the younger generation of Americans, namely those under thirty, 43 percent believe China is reliable. This could have a certain degree of influence on U.S. foreign policy in the future.
Analysts believe that the increasing use of the “China card” in the U.S. elections is attributable to the fact that a considerable number of Americans have contradictory, complex views on China, with more attention being paid to China day by day.
Although Obama and Romney frequently play the “China card,” this is simply a campaign strategy. No matter who is elected, the next president will act with extreme prudence on issues concerning the country’s key relationship with China.
Laura Tyson, a former economic consultant for the Clinton administration, believes that if Obama is re-elected he will continue with his current China policy. Thus, during the campaign, he will avoid adopting an excessively radical stance in order to avoid an image of passivity in the future.
Peter Pfeiffer, a professor of political science at Duke University, points out that in diplomacy, presidential candidates deliberately craft fierce speeches for the elections but will return to reality after they win the election. Their more extreme and radical stances will not be realized.
Harvard professor Tony Saich, a well-known American expert on Chinese issues, claims that “during the political period of elections, it is more than normal to find more voices, attitudes and actions against China. The exchange rate problem that Romney has focused on cannot be solved overnight, and the imposition of a series of anti-protectionist sanctions by Obama does not mean he is willing to witness a trade war between the two powers. Once a candidate becomes president, he will realize that the U.S. must keep a relatively normal relationship with China. This distinction between pre-election and post-election positions also occurred with George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, as well as some other former presidents.”*
He also believes China’s understanding of American political phenomena has grown more mature and says “it is just the impact of the election, let us wait and see what happens after the president is elected.”*
Elizabeth Economides, of the Council on Foreign Relations, indicates that China’s rising international status will probably pose some challenges for the next U.S. president. Since the increasing power of China is constantly changing the world order, U.S.-China relations cannot be confined to themes of trade, Taiwan and human rights. The next president must confront almost every global challenge with China, from Iran and North Korea to global financial regulation and climate change.
*Editor’s Note: These quotes, while accurately translated, could not be verified.
Ohio has become the front line for the newest wave of election competition, with both candidates playing the “China card”. This swing state is hotly contested and is of strategic importance for the election. As 13 percent of the population of Ohio works in the manufacturing industry, both campaign teams see cracking down on the great manufacturing power of China as a useful tool for gaining a favorable impression from the electorate of Ohio. Therefore, since September, Obama and Romney have taken turns appearing in Ohio and throwing money into campaign advertising with a focus on China.
For example, advertisements by Romney's team blame Obama for not accusing China of currency manipulation, which they say has led to the outflow of millions of jobs overseas. They accuse him of sitting back and watching China “steal” various ideas and techniques from Americans and apply these to the development of its own industries, including computers and aircraft.
On the other hand, Obama’s camp attacks Romney for cultivating the image that he is against trade with China, even while building up his person fortune by investing in it. Further, having found a vulnerable point in Romney’s 2011 tax returns and personal income reports, Obama criticized Romney’s previous trust fund investments in the China National Offshore Oil Cooperation and Youku.
Despite the frequent and eloquent tongue-lashings toward China, a harsh policy toward China is little more than a strategy developed by the candidates during an election year in order to foster a tough and unyielding image. In reality, they do not have hugely divergent policies toward China.
Obama’s campaign has focused on talk of gaining back American jobs that the manufacturing industry lost to China and on strengthening the intensity of investigations of China in the international trade arena. On the other hand, Romney’s most conspicuous remark has been that he will label China as a “currency manipulator” the first day he moves into the White House. Further, he has criticized Obama’s overly mild policy toward China in terms of employment, military, human rights, etc.
Needless to say, compared with these verbal attacks from Romney, as the current president Obama has better access to and can allocate more administrative resources when playing the “China card”. For example, on Sept. 17 the Obama administration requested a consultation with the World Trade Organization and accused the Chinese government of providing subsidies of at least U.S. $1 billion to their auto and auto parts export industries from 2009 to 2011. On Sept. 29, Obama gave orders to prevent a Chinese owned company from purchasing a U.S. wind farm project.
In recent years, the rapid, continued growth of the Chinese economy coupled with the decline in America’s economy and power has subtly changed how the presidents and candidates talk about China and related issues.
In the past, presidents and candidates from both parties often played the “China card,” but China was always in the position of being scolded, educated or even assisted. For example, in 1999, Clinton condescendingly offered to help China better integrate with the world. In 2008, George W. Bush claimed that America would help China make better use of green energy. However, when it comes to Obama and Romney, such offers no longer exist. Obama has even expressed worries that the U.S. might fall behind China and become “Number Two” in the world.
This shows that both political parties have admitted that China has risen in power and influence. According to both parties, the rise of a peaceful and prosperous China is beneficial to the U.S. This should be the starting point of the next U.S. president’s new China policy for the next four years.
Although we see that both Obama and Romney’s attitudes toward China have changed, most Americans still hold on to a belief in so-called “American Exceptionalism.” Romney’s election slogan is “Believe in America,” which according to what he expresses in his autobiography “No Apology” could more accurately be “Believe in American Exceptionalism.” In his autobiography, he analyzes the decline of other historical superpowers, including imperial China, and explains why America will not suffer from this same decline, even in the coming post-economic crisis era. Whether or not this is purely for campaign purposes, his position undoubtedly mirrors the deep-rooted psychological attachment of many Americans, especially older generations, to the position of the U.S. as a superpower.
Because of this sentiment, President Obama must develop a similar, unequivocal attitude of believing in American supremacy, particularly when dealing with domestic issues and political activities such as elections, despite the practical reality of a multipolar world order.
Sino-American relations are without any doubt among the most important and complicated bilateral relations in the world. Through the lens of the U.S. election, it is easier to observe the complex attitudes of Americans toward China, especially in terms of the changing power relations between China and the U.S. The complexity of this mentality is even more apparent after the 2008 financial crisis. It has turned out to be a surprise to both Americans and Chinese that the situation could change so quickly.
This common practice of criticizing China while canvassing demonstrates the obvious similarities between the two candidates and their campaigns. But what is the logic behind it? In reality, it reflects the mentality of American voters.
According to Elizabeth Economides, the director of Asian Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, with the rise of China’s power and international position the next U.S. president will have to work with China to confront nearly all global challenges, from Iran and North Korea to global financial regulation and climate change.
According to research published by the Pew Research Center on Sept. 19, two-thirds of Americans think China and the U.S. have a sound relationship. 55 percent of the general public agrees that the U.S. should build strong ties with China, while up to 84 percent of government officials, scholars, businessmen and other “expert” groups hold this view. Nevertheless, most Americans still regard China as their competitor and rival, and 56 percent of the public and 49 percent of the experts think America should remain tough and uncompromising in areas of trade and the economy. Moreover, only a small percentage of people believe China is reliable.
However, it is worth noting that of the younger generation of Americans, namely those under thirty, 43 percent believe China is reliable. This could have a certain degree of influence on U.S. foreign policy in the future.
Analysts believe that the increasing use of the “China card” in the U.S. elections is attributable to the fact that a considerable number of Americans have contradictory, complex views on China, with more attention being paid to China day by day.
Although Obama and Romney frequently play the “China card,” this is simply a campaign strategy. No matter who is elected, the next president will act with extreme prudence on issues concerning the country’s key relationship with China.
Laura Tyson, a former economic consultant for the Clinton administration, believes that if Obama is re-elected he will continue with his current China policy. Thus, during the campaign, he will avoid adopting an excessively radical stance in order to avoid an image of passivity in the future.
Peter Pfeiffer, a professor of political science at Duke University, points out that in diplomacy, presidential candidates deliberately craft fierce speeches for the elections but will return to reality after they win the election. Their more extreme and radical stances will not be realized.
Harvard professor Tony Saich, a well-known American expert on Chinese issues, claims that “during the political period of elections, it is more than normal to find more voices, attitudes and actions against China. The exchange rate problem that Romney has focused on cannot be solved overnight, and the imposition of a series of anti-protectionist sanctions by Obama does not mean he is willing to witness a trade war between the two powers. Once a candidate becomes president, he will realize that the U.S. must keep a relatively normal relationship with China. This distinction between pre-election and post-election positions also occurred with George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, as well as some other former presidents.”*
He also believes China’s understanding of American political phenomena has grown more mature and says “it is just the impact of the election, let us wait and see what happens after the president is elected.”*
Elizabeth Economides, of the Council on Foreign Relations, indicates that China’s rising international status will probably pose some challenges for the next U.S. president. Since the increasing power of China is constantly changing the world order, U.S.-China relations cannot be confined to themes of trade, Taiwan and human rights. The next president must confront almost every global challenge with China, from Iran and North Korea to global financial regulation and climate change.
*Editor’s Note: These quotes, while accurately translated, could not be verified.