Mark Michelson predicts that the distractions of the fractious US presidential election campaign will result in the US failing to take the leadership role it needs to maximise its engagement with Asia’s key markets
The ongoing, interminable campaign for the US presidency – which will last at least until November 8 – will continue to constrict American policy toward Asia, especially China. Dominated by ‘politics of fear,” the domestic infighting reflected in the campaign strikes many Asian opinion leaders as what veteran Washington Post foreign affairs commentator David Ignatius recently described as “enfeebling the United States and impeding its traditional role of global leadership.”
A (very) few candidates, notably former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, recognize the value of maintaining the relatively stable, engaged relationship with the world’s second largest economy and top regional power that his father generally followed – while vigorously pursuing US interests in areas of dispute like trade and finance, Chinese claims in the South and East China Seas, human rights and the environment.
“China is a litmus test for how the presidential candidates would govern on a broad range of issues. Are they isolationists or interventionists? Do they see foreign policy as a job for the White House or the Congress? How would they strike a balance between concern for human rights and the economy? Which constituency do they most aim to please — business, labor, religious groups, environmentalists, defense hawks?”
Bloomberg BusinessWeek, 23 December 2015
However, almost all the others focus on the negative: Donald Trump labeling the Chinese as ‘cheaters’ in, for example, currency manipulation to benefit Chinese exporters, dumping products in the US market at prices below cost, cyber intrusions into US government and business and enticing American companies to ‘outsource’ jobs to China – which is a particular favorite of Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (a campaign dropout). And this type of overheated rhetoric tends to be exacerbated by widespread fears of the impact on the US of China’s recent economic machinations, reinforced by public concern from Fed Chair Janet Yellen and other grandees.
Some have taken what is sometimes described as a neoconservative approach to foreign policy, with Florida Senator Marco Rubio – together with now ex-candidates New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and former HP CEO Carly Fiorina – supporting a larger military budget and suggesting a willingness to use force to defend US interests and promote democracy in China and elsewhere in Asia. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton often takes a hard line as well, which pleases most labor unions that still play a significant role in funding and influencing Democratic Party hopefuls.
Different rhetoric this time around
While hard lines particularly toward China in the past few presidential campaigns – e.g., Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Barack Obama – have noticeably softened after taking office, the atmosphere may have changed in the US. There seems to be even more suspicion and fear of “foreign entanglements” and unwelcomed intrusions of various kinds into the country. Much of this apprehension has been fuelled by what is widely seen as an uncontrolled surge in terrorist violence at home and abroad as well as increasingly concerning cyber-attacks, much of which is attributed to “foreign” anti-American elements, which includes China.
As for communications thus far during the campaign, “visibility” has been pervasive, especially for skilled practitioners like Donald Trump. But “credibility” has been hard hit – evidently more than usual in American political contests. For some candidates, the more outrageous, factually challenged pronouncements they make about China, a variety of foreigners and developments overseas, the higher their poll numbers. Attempts by their opponents or established media to expose misstatements, exaggerations and sometimes outright ethnic slurs or racism have mainly fallen flat or have been counterproductive among anti-establishment voters. The burgeoning role of social media as a source of information and ideas and vehicle for debate complicates this already challenging situation.
Even though it appears that public affairs consultants and firms are assisting the candidates and attempting, in some cases, to encourage a more balanced and factual discussion of Asia/China and other issues, their efforts seem to have had limited impact. For example, Donald Trump attacks both the Japanese and Koreans for not paying for their own security – both countries pay substantial amounts – and Japan for taking many US jobs, which recalls the debate in the 1980s but looks out of place in 2016. Too often, interviewers or reporters seem unaware of such discrepancies, especially if related to Asia, or reluctant to challenge the candidate. The result is more of the same.
Yet the situation could well change in the next 2-3 months, as more primary elections are held and the candidates who emerge as serious contenders could have to broaden their appeal to constituencies who may ask tougher questions and expect more credible responses. Public affairs professionals may then become more involved in trying to counter the “politics of fear,” especially toward China and Asia.
