China-Bashing: Branded Information Designed to Distract and Confuse

Economist Edward Glaeser, in a recent commentary, noted that

President Obama celebrated the Year of the Dragon by “announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trading policies in countries like China.” Mitt Romney wants to begin his presidency “by designating China as the currency manipulator it is.”

It is not at all uncommon in an election year to see US leaders ‘China Bash.’ This is one tool for displacing conflict…shifting the attentions of key publics away from trade and budget deficits to focus on another aspect of these conflicts (Chinese currency manipulation this time around)…which just happens to reframe the conflict to refocus our attentions from the failures of our own elites to blaming China for our problems. Glaeser continues,

We couldn’t impose our will on Beijing when Douglas MacArthur led an army toward the Yalu River, and we have far less power today. American consumers will pay the price for trade sanctions on China, and intemperate action will ensure Chinese opposition in other vital areas, such as containing Iranian nuclear ambitions.

Glaeser focuses on the pragmatic.  While emotionally satisfying…while it feels good to get angry at China, as Glaeser shows very clearly, responses that start with anger will hurt us more…they will not work.

The emotional energy here is focusing us on more trivial aspects of these conflicts in order to distract us and to absolve our own leaders—public and private—of responsibility…and to arouse our anger in a way that is designed to mislead and mis-use popular sovereignty, designed to get us angry so we will be less rational and more readily be mobilized by whatever (unworkable) policy idea is proposed to ‘punish China.’ Glaeser continues,

Would-be presidents have been twisting the dragon’s tail since 1950, when Robert Taft accused the Truman administration of “building up” the Chinese Communists. As candidates, Presidents Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush all wanted tougher China policies. Fortunately, pragmatism usually won out, and cooperation ensued. Nixon’s rapprochement with Beijing created a potent partnership against the Soviet Union. China is now America’s second-largest trading partner (after Canada), and the largest holder of U.S. government debt.... I wish more freedom and stronger property rights for all nations, [but] imposing tough trade sanctions on China is likely to create more cost than benefit for the United States.

Glaeser shows that the most common arguments for why we should punish China will not work. Even as blaming China feels satisfying, feels like we are actually doing something to fix the situation…upon closer examination the only benefit is likely to be the temporary emotional satisfaction we get from feeling self-righteous anger, because punishing China will not result in the outcomes we seek.

Usually, we only realize this after the election when we notice that President Romney or Obama is not following through on punishing China. Glaeser continues,

Accepting that America has limited options on China may feel unsatisfying to many voters. But punitive trade policies are particularly dangerous because the world’s second-most powerful nation can easily strike back. Chinese purchases of vast amounts of American debt — part of the country’s alleged currency manipulation— help keep our interest rates low. If China dumped U.S. securities, the federal government’s fiscal situation would go from bad to dire.

Besides, without Chinese help, we have little hope of using nonmilitary options, like trade embargoes, to force change in Iran and North Korea. And as long as China buys its oil, Iran doesn’t need the United States or the European Union. A U.S.-China trade war practically guarantees a nuclear-armed Iran.

Politicians may enjoy appealing to popular anti-China sentiment, but America’s interests demand cooperation, not conflict....

Here ‘enjoy’ means it may help public sector elites win elections (or private sector elites win more taxpayer subsidies or derail consumer protections), it may be sound political strategy in the elections or public relations games…but it is not a useful resource in the policy game.

In fact, expressively satisfying but instrumentally suspect anger-driven decision making is a policy game weakness that previous presidents have wisely tossed aside after soaking up all the support they could muster from key audiences who can easily be distracted and persuaded that what they seek is an elite-exonerating but emotionally satisfying non-response to the very real conflicts we are facing. 

More important, it is not only a recipe for bad policy, the dynamic described here threatens to undermine the communicative conditions and deliberation skills required to make democracy both possible and desirable.

One place to find the Glaeser article:
http://www.ohio.com/editorial/edward-l-glaeser-sanctions-and-sabre-rattling-will-fail-with-china-1.257391