Trade Cases
What Can Be Done about China?
Written by John Packard
September 27, 2020
We are in high campaign season. The death of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and the nomination of Judge Amy Covey Barrett of Indiana as her successor, have drained a lot of the oxygen about foreign policy and trade. But those issues will not disappear.
In a briefing sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce last week, a key Biden advisor, Antony Blinken, answered questions about foreign and international trade policy. As is frequently the case with the former Vice President, and with front-runners in elections past, detailed, specific statements were in short supply. The Biden campaign obviously wants to win; many Americans don’t want to hear about the complications of dealing with China and other key issues. They want to isolate and punish China—and they want the U.S. out of endless wars.
All of these sentiments are honestly held—but the American people also don’t want the global situation to deteriorate due to inattention, as happened in the 1930s. The consequences of a blow-up, as bad as they were then, are nothing like they would be now.
A friend of mine asked me a few days ago—what would I do about China? I’ve thought a lot about this and I don’t have a perfect answer. Unfortunately, voters don’t want imperfect answers and, therefore, presidential campaigns don’t give imperfect answers. Instead, they give sound bites, all too often, instead of 
concrete suggestions.
Trump advisor Ken Farnaso recently accused Joe Biden of spending “his entire career appeasing globalist leaders and expanding American reliance on foreign countries like China.”
Biden advisor Antony Blinken stated last week that the Trump initiative to “decouple” the United States from China is “unrealistic” and damaging to U.S. manufacturing.
Neither campaign has noticeably mentioned the goals of U.S. China policy and what their candidate would do to achieve them. As I note above, campaigns are not the time to make detailed proposals. Criticism of the other side is the way to stay noticed and not alienate too many voters.
Trump’s “America first” theme paints a dim picture of all foreign governments, friend and foe alike. Biden’s approach criticizes China’s practices, but has not mentioned how to change them.
It is fair to say that the Trump approach to China has, aside from fattening the U.S. Treasury with tariffs (paid largely by Americans), not done much to change China’s practices like trade secret theft, aggressive moves against India, threatening Taiwan and imbedding the Chinese military and Communist Party.
Biden counters that allies with a common purpose would be more effective at reining in China. The first thing that comes to mind about working with allies to achieve a common purpose is the TransPacific Partnership (TPP), which was conceived in the Barack Obama administration as a way to develop an Asia-Pacific group to challenge China commercially. The Trump administration withdrew the United States from the TPP within weeks after taking office.
Joe Biden might be expected to declare that the U.S. would rejoin the TPP (which in the meantime has already been finalized and is in operation, although much less effectively for the absence of the United States). We are not hearing much about this, although it may be Biden’s plan, should he be elected. The silence on TPP is because many Democrats, as well as Republicans, are not particularly pro-trade because they associate it with job losses to foreign manufacturers. This association is largely inaccurate, although not totally untrue: the world changes and the strengths and weaknesses of countries changes too.
Because the presidential race is close, every issue is important because every vote is important. As the campaign reaches its climactic final weeks, I expect more of the same—little comment on what ideas would work (for fear of alienating voters) and a great deal of comment on the failings of the other side. When the campaign is over (and, thankfully, it WILL be over), the hard work of weighing options and building coalitions to achieve constructive changes will begin (or renew, depending on the victor).
As a sidebar, I am a student of history—I’ve analyzed the periods of party control of the presidency, and it taught me something.
Since 1913, when Woodrow Wilson was inaugurated, the periods of Democratic and Republican control are:
1913-1921—Democrats (Wilson)—8 years
1921-1933—Republicans (Harding, Coolidge, Hoover)—12 years
1933-1953—Democrats (Franklin Roosevelt, Truman)—20 years
1953-1961—Republicans (Eisenhower)—8 years
1961-1969—Democrats (Kennedy, Johnson)—8 years
1969-1977—Republicans (Nixon, Ford)—8 years
1977-1981—Democrats (Carter)—4 years
1981-1993—Republicans (Reagan, George H.W. Bush)—12 years
1993-2001—Democrats (Clinton)—8 years
2001-2009—Republicans (George W. Bush)—8 years
2009-2017—Democrats (Obama)—8 years
2017-? –Republicans (Trump)—4 years(?)
The norm for one party’s control of the White House is 8 years. There were seven 8-year stretches of one-party control (4 Democratic, 3 Republican). There were three periods where one party held the White House for more than 8 years (two Republican periods of 12 years and one Democratic period of 20 years), there was only one party that was thrown out after only 4—Jimmy Carter, who was defeated in 1980 by Ronald Reagan. Altogether, since 1913, the Democrats held the presidency for 56 years, the Republicans 52.
The challenge for Joe Biden is to make Donald Trump the only Republican President to exit the White House because of electoral defeat after only four years of Republican control. There are many reasons that can explain the 8-year norm. I think the basic trust of the American people in institutions like the political parties has caused them to give each side a number of years. That trust may be wearing thin now, and that could usher in a period of less stability in our institutions and our government. For now, the effort to remove the Republicans from the White House in 2020 is swimming against the tide of history. Of course, I’m not saying it can’t happen, only that it’s been rare for quite a while.
Lewis Leibowitz
The Law Office of Lewis E. Leibowitz
1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 350
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: (202) 776-1142
Mobile: (202) 250-1551
E-mail: lewis.leibowitz@lellawoffice.com
John Packard
Read more from John PackardLatest in Trade Cases
China challenges Canada’s tariffs on steel, aluminum, EVs
China is challenging Canada’s decision to put tariffs on imports of Chinese steel, aluminum, and electric vehicles.
Leibowitz: Harris, Trump don’t talk much about steel and trade – because they (mostly) agree
By most accounts, the issues that are most important for voters in this election are the economy, immigration, and abortion. International trade policy plays a key role in at least two of those three (the economy and immigration). Both presidential candidates recognize that trade and tariffs are an important focus. And “America first” is a rallying point for both candidates.
Commerce launches investigation into imports of coated flat-rolled steel
On Thursday, the Department of Commerce announced it would initiate investigations into coated steel imports from ten countries.
Op-Ed: Despite misclassification games, import data supports surge of Mexican conduit
Barry Zekelman, chairman and CEO of Zekelman Industries, says the import data unquestionably supports the fact that imports of Mexican conduit have been surging into the US market.
Leibowitz: The Mexican steel import “surge”—and what to do about it
US presidential campaigns frequently sport an “air of unreality.” No more so than the 2024 campaign, where superlatives fly around like mosquitos. Steel trade has been a feature of political discourse for at least half a century now. Just last week, it proceeded to a new level of “unreality.” Four senators - Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and Mike Braun (R-Ind.) - wrote a “bipartisan” letter attacking Mexican exports of steel to the United States. They framed it as a “surge” in US steel imports from Mexico. To address this “surge,” the Senators urge the imposition of 25% tariffs on all steel imports from Mexico.