By Steve Brawner, © 2019 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.
Let’s start with some transparency: In 2016, I voted enthusiastically for Ohio Gov. John Kasich in the Republican presidential primary and then voted for Evan McMullin in the general election because he was the best alternative to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. I don’t want President Trump to be re-elected (but also don’t support impeachment) and am hoping a credible third party candidate emerges before next November.
I said “hoping,” not “holding my breath.”
But not being a Trump supporter shouldn’t blind anyone to ways his presidency has benefitted America, particularly this: He has challenged some assumptions about trade that needed to be challenged.
For decades, the consensus among political elites has been that trade is a good thing, and it has been. It has lifted millions worldwide from poverty, reduced the chance for conflict with rivals, and introduced free markets and the concept of freedom to autocratic countries such as China. As bad as China is, it was far worse decades ago, and in the Korean War Americans and Chinese were killing each other. Meanwhile, free trade has lowered prices for American consumers. The shirt I might buy today costs about what one did when I graduated high school in 1987.
But some of the benefits of the established trading system may already have been realized. China appears to have taken a wrong turn in recent years; after becoming more free, it is becoming less so.
Meanwhile, America’s trade policies have had their downsides. They transfer wealth from our country to others. They flood our economy and landfills with cheaply made overseas products. They move production to countries lacking worker and environmental protections, so that I’m not certain my shirt wasn’t produced by slaves or children in a polluting factory. These policies reduce the power of American workers, who can’t produce as cheaply as those in polluting, rights-ignoring countries. They allow rivals like China to obtain – or steal – American intellectual property. They create trading partnerships with – and therefore dependence on – undemocratic countries. While trade helps us influence the authoritarians, they also influence us.
These downsides have been downplayed for decades, partly because the system has benefitted the wealthy and powerful. But Trump deserves credit for highlighting some of these downsides and trying to address them. He hasn’t always handled his trade war with China perfectly, and it’s clearly hurting farmers, including those in Arkansas. He should not have pulled the United States out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement or the Paris Agreement concerning climate change. His refusal to divest himself of his business interests or release his tax returns calls into question all he’s doing. But he at least is forcing China and other partners to the table, which should have been done long ago. And his administration’s United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement seems to be a better deal than the already good North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, it would replace.
It’s possible – and beneficial – for a person to disapprove of a particular president while acknowledging what he or she offers during a unique moment in history. For example …
– Some people might have the opinion that President Carter was weak and too moralistic, but his character and personality helped him broker a peace deal between Israel and Egypt that still benefits both today.
– Some might have the opinion that President Reagan had a simplistic good-versus-evil worldview, but his resolve and policies hastened the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
– Some might disapprove of President George W. Bush because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but another foreign involvement, his President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, has saved many African lives.
– Some might not like President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, but he has served as an inspiration for many Americans, including racial minorities, while dispelling the idea that America would never elect a black president.
I won’t vote for President Trump in 2020 because of the ways I believe he is the wrong person for the job. But I’ll also acknowledge where he’s right, including this: Trade is beneficial overall, but its downsides should be addressed, and the United States should negotiate from a position of strength. It’s time for some new deals, and we happen to have a dealmaker in the White House.
I’m still hoping that Kasich or someone else will run, though. Not holding my breath, but hoping.
Hi Steve, I get your point here, but giving Trump credit for pointing out the obvious is a pretty low bar. It’s a bit like someone pointing out the barn is on fire, then coming back with a glass of water. Imagine what could have been done with real leadership… if Trump had NOT precipitously pulled out of TPP, had NOT simultaneously started trade wars with almost all of our allies. If the US had worked with Britain and the EU, had worked with Asian neighbors like Japan, S. Korea, Vietnam, etc., all of whom have real concerns about China’s trade policies, to actually bring about pressure on China for real reform, that could have been very effective. It would have been hard, and required real effort, diplomacy and expertise, but could have been done.
Instead, we have the thinnest of bilateral trade deals that Trump will announce soon to counteract some of the damage he’s already caused, and Trump will claim victory and repeatedly talk about how he solved the China trade issue (like he’s done with North Korea and Iran). And, following the playbook of autocrats everywhere (including China) he will repeat the lie over and over until people start to believe it. Doesn’t take Nostradamus to see this coming.
Good points, Adam. But why didn’t any of Trump’s predecessors point out the obvious? Would love to talk to you some time at length about your personal experiences with this. You would know so much more than I do.
Well, you have to look at the situation in context, right. Bill Clinton talked tough on China in the campaign but dealt with China and under his administration they began negotiating China’s entry in the WTO, which ultimately happened in the Bush administration. This was a reasonably good bet at the time, and China was undergoing massive economic reform, and even some more modest political reforms as well. George W. Bush was, shall we say, Republican classic… meaning that he was naturally predisposed towards free trade. China in the early 2000s was speeding up and deepening its economic reforms, but also broader reforms that touched the whole society. Now, of course, Republicans apparently LOVE trade wars, tariffs on our allies and competitors alike, and hate multilateral deals. (Through their unwavering support of Trump they apparently also support bribery, corruption, constant lying and putting kids in cages, but that’s another matter). China’s annual GDP growth in the 90s and 2000s regularly topped 10%. When Obama came into office, China had just pulled off one of the most impressive Olympic games in memory, the US and world economy was falling off a cliff, and the actual one stable economic engine throughout all that economic chaos was China’s. Add to that, Xi Jinping was just coming into power in China and there was thinking that he could be a closet reformer. It took a few years to see just how illiberal he was going to be politically (though not necessarily economically) and to what lengths he would go to ensure his own position and Party dominance over everything.
Add to that the economic devastation that was ravaging the US economy, and this was proof to many in China that the west was fragile, that the Chinese century was beginning. So, now for some mind-blowing stats… if you were between the ages of 18 and 22 in China in 1997, what were your odds of being in a 4-year college program… somewhere around 3%. If, in 2008, you were between the ages of 18 and 22, what were those odds, 24%. And not for a country with a piddly 300 million in population… we’re talking 1.2 billion give or take at the time. China aims to have that number be at 40% by sometime in the 2020s, and they’re on a pretty good trajectory for that. Another fun statistic (been doing some research on Chinese education recently), there are roughly around 380,000 Chinese students studying in US universities right now, and the vast majority of these students are doing 4-year degrees or graduate programs. How about Americans studying in China… according to the latest number we have from the International Institute of Education’s Open Doors report, not quite 14,000. And the vast majority of those are doing semester or summer programs.
So, China is investing huge amounts in its economic overhaul, in education, in research and development, and people’s lives have improved immeasurably over the last 30 years, almost across the board. The US is NOT investing in education… we still have an education system that is built for early 20th century. We’re not only NOT preparing kids for the future, we’re barely preparing them for how to work in an economy stuck in 1950. My point here is that we should be preparing for the economy of the future, not trying to hold on to dead-end jobs that will be increasingly irrelevant in the very near future, but our current education system is not really doing either.
Okay, I’ve now strayed a bit far from the topic so I’ll stop rambling now…