When it comes to foreign policy, American presidential candidates have often found it easy, even beneficial, to criticize China. In recent decades, China’s growing economic, military and political clout has generated concern among many voters in this country. Frankly, there has been plenty to criticize, including Beijing’s reprehensible treatment of its own citizens.
But as the current crop of candidates is proving, just because they can lambast China doesn’t mean they have any smart analysis or creative policies to offer. In fact, a lot of the broadsides and suggestions have been nonsensical, chest-beating exercises that if followed through could be damaging to American interests.
One mind-boggling proposal came from the Republican candidate Scott Walker who on Monday said President Obama should show “some backbone” by canceling next month’s state visit to the White House by President Xi Jinping of China. Citing the Chinese economic turmoil that has upended international markets, the Wisconsin governor asked “why would we be giving one of our highest things a president can do — and that is a state dinner for Xi Jinping, the head of China — at a time when all of these problems are pending out there?” He argued that such invitations should be reserved for American allies and supporters and asserted that China and other countries would “respect” the United States if the invitation were revoked.
In fact, most of the world would find it disrespectful and stupid if an invitation to the leader of one of the largest economies was withdrawn, especially at a time when the American and Chinese presidents need to be consulting on the economic turmoil as well as other challenges, including climate change, cyber attacks, North Korea and the South China Sea.
Mr. Walker has been lagging in the polls, so maybe taking on China was a way to get some attention. But it could backfire: As The Washington Post reported on Wednesday, his tough talk could hurt his relationship with farmers in Iowa who export billions of dollars in soybeans to China, and with the state’s governor, Terry Branstad, who is friendly with Mr. Xi and introduced him to Mr. Walker on a trade mission to China in 2013.
Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner, didn’t need the publicity boost, but he took to social media after the Dow plummeted 1,000 points on Monday to blame the rollercoaster on the fact that the United States is too closely tied to China. “Markets are crashing — all caused by poor planning and allowing China and Asia to dictate the agenda. This could get very messy! Vote Trump,” he tweeted.
The wealthy mogul has long been a China-basher, accusing the country of manipulating its currency while sucking jobs and money out of the United States. He claims he will get those jobs and money back but so far hasn’t put forward a credible plan to do that, or address any of the other challenges the two countries face. It’s hard to imagine how the United States could plausibly separate itself from China’s economy in a globalized world, as Mr. Trump suggests, or why it would want to.
China and American policy toward China, including possible responses to Beijing’s aggressive maritime grab in the South China Sea, should be major issues in the 2016 campaign. For such debate to have real value, the candidates are going to have to raise the discourse far above what we have seen so far.