Not a single congressional Republican voted for the recent $1.9 trillion stimulus package. Not even the so-called moderate Republicans, the handful who backed the second impeachment of former mayors, as well as 41% of Republican voters, who approved of the legislation.Donald Trump, deigned to support an economic package that helps Americans hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. The entire Republican caucus didn’t just snub the Democrats. They ignored the Republican
Naturally, the unified Republican caucus complained that Presidentwas not displaying his promised bipartisanship. It didn’t seem to occur to them that bipartisanship is a two-way street. How soon they’ve forgotten that nearly every Democrat in both houses voted for the Trump administration’s initial bailout package in March 2020.
A Deeper Look into Hong Kong’s Evolution
Nevertheless, the high hopes that he can attract Republican support for an infrastructure bill this summer, given that rebuilding American bridges, highways and the like was a priority for the previous administration.administration remains eager to find common ground with Republican legislators. The president has
But here’s a truly troubling scenario. Casting around for another unifying topic, theteam has seized upon . Democrats and Republicans alike are concerned about what is doing these days. There is bipartisan disgust over what’s happening in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. Hawks in both parties have long warned about ’s actions in the South Sea. Despite wildly different economic ideologies, Democrats and Republicans have joined hands in their opposition to trade and currency policies, cavalier approach to intellectual property rights and efforts to dominate markets in the Global South.
On the face of it, however, the bill that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is starting to pull together is just another infrastructure initiative. It is meant “to shore up according to The Washington Post.. supply chains, expand American production of semiconductors, create 5G networks nationwide and pour billions into investments into . manufacturing companies and hubs, among other proposals,”
But it’s not just infrastructure. The measure is specifically designed to bolster the full-spectrum points out Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the right-wing American Action Forum.fight against . “Hating is a big bipartisan thing, and Schumer has the opportunity to take ownership of being against ,”
According to the most benign reading of this bipartisanship, the writes liberal columnist E.J. Dionne.administration will be manufacturing an anti- version of the Sputnik moment when, in 1957, the Soviet launch of the first artificial satellite prompted a frenzy of government spending on science and technology to catch up to the Russians. “The danger poses could fundamentally reorder . attitudes toward government’s role in domestic economic growth, research and development in ways that leave the stronger,”
A robust industrial policy is indeed preferable to, say, the tariffs that the Trump administration levied againstproducts. If fear of overcomes the conservative distaste for government interventions in the economy, should progressives really be looking this particular gift horse in the mouth?
Full Court Press
The Quad is the latest multilateral mechanism through which theis putting pressure on . The four countries — the , India, Japan and Australia — all have their separate beefs with . But last week was the first time that the heads of these four states met as part of the , which was set up in 2007.
The statement the four leaders recently published in The Washington Post makes no mention of . It’s all about cooperating on climate, the pandemic and strengthening democracy. But that’s just being diplomatic. As Alex Ward writes in Vox, has “gotten into a deadly fight over a disputed border with India, started a trade war with Australia, hacked the government, and for years used its might to push Japan around on economic and military matters.” Trump tried to rally the four countries behind his own anti- agenda. But his efforts were compromised by a suspicion in many quarters that he’d just as soon negotiate a deal with behind the Quad’s back as coordinate a united front.
The current president, by contrast, has moved steadily away from a preference to engage said. This reprogramming explains Biden’s harsher tone during the election, such as calling leader “a thug.”. “ had to be reprogrammed on ” during the presidential campaign, one of his advisers
As president, recent Gallup poll, its worst showing in more than four decades. A shift has taken place in just the last couple of years. According to a Pew Research Center poll, 67% of Americans now have “cold” feelings toward , compared to only 46% in 2018.has been careful to sound notes of both amicability and threat. Cooperation to deal with the climate crisis is certainly a possibility. But promoting deals with is not going to win the new president support in Congress or, for that matter, with the American public. China’s unfavorability rating rose to 79% in a
The appointment of Kurt Campbell as the Indo-Pacific coordinator at the National Security Council (NSC) indicates the direction of the administration’s new take on Asia. Campbell was a key architect of the “Pacific pivot” under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the Obama administration. He’s not going to play quite the anti-role that Matt Pottinger did on Trump’s NSC, but he’s a firm believer in strengthening bilateral alliances and multilateral coordination to contain .
In a January 2021 piece in explains, this means that:Affairs, Campbell channeled Henry Kissinger in asserting the need for the to restore a “balance of power” in the region. What that really means is that the , with the help of its friends, must push back against to reassert its own Pacific authority, both militarily and economically. Practically, Campbell
“Although Washington should maintain its forward presence, it also needs to work with other states to disperse. forces across Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean. This would reduce American reliance on a small number of vulnerable facilities in East Asia. Finally, the should encourage new military and intelligence partnerships between regional states, while still deepening those relationships in which the plays a major role—placing a ‘tire’ on the familiar regional alliance system with a . hub and allied spokes.”
Over the years, World Health Organization. Where It has encountered difficulties in expanding its influence, such as with international financial institutions, it has simply created its own. Shortly after Biden’s election, joined the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which includes the countries of Southeast Asia, plus Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan). This move, plus ’s recent investment agreement with the European Union and President Xi’s announcement that would also consider joining a modified Trans-Pacific Partnership, suggests an economic counteroffensive to the ramping up of multilateral security arrangements.has steadily eroded power not only in Asia but internationally. It used the anti-globalism of the Trump years to expand its influence in international institutions such as the United Nations and its associated bodies like the
These moves have not gone unnoticed. On the eve of their first visit to Asia this week, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin III wrote in The Washington Post, “If we don’t act decisively and lead, will.”
Theadministration’s decision to focus on beefing up economic competitiveness, particularly in the tech sector, is in some ways an admission of defeat. has outmaneuvered the in the global economy. The only way Washington can compete at the moment is by throwing its weight around militarily and trying to play catch-up on the home front.
Is China a Useful Threat?
It’s hard to argue with the importance of investing in criticalindustries. Republicans and laissez-faire economists generally oppose such a policy of picking winners and losers in the marketplace, except when it comes to the military-industrial complex. Only a large external threat can move such ideologues to accept the obvious: governments can and should shape markets.
But here are some problems with hitching this industrial policy to the “threat.” The global economy needs an overhaul to address the climate crisis, rampant economic inequality, automation and other developments. This is no time for the to turn its economic relationship with into a Cold War competition. Sure, let the two countries compete over who makes the best laptop computer, but cooperation is essential for developing new rules for the global economy. A robust industrial policy doesn’t preclude cooperation, unless it feeds into a rancor and a parochialism that makes cooperation near to impossible.
The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the fragility of global supply chains, with the collapse of international trade and countries initially competing for scarce medical equipment. This is not a new problem, however. Shelley Rigger writes in her 2013 book on Taiwan about a moment “in 1999 when a power transmission tower on a remote mountain in central Taiwan toppled, blacking out the island’s high-tech industry for a day. The interruption nearly doubled the world price of memory chips and the supply of TFT-LCD flat screens took six months to return to normal.” Natural (and unnatural) disasters can wreak havoc on the supply of essential components.
Ensuring an indigenous supply of computer chips may well protect thein the short term, but it does little to address the underlying problem of supply chains. A return to a time when every country produced all of its essentials or went without is not really an option, considering the importance of global trade routes going back to the Silk Road and even before. Reshoring and relocalization are both essential in this age of climate crisis. But a reordering of the global economy that accommodates such changes should be a matter for coordination, not Cold War competition.
In addition, an industrial policy that prioritizes gaining a competitive edge overcould overshadow the other major focus of the administration, namely reducing the national and global carbon footprints. High-tech products often rely on key outputs of the extraction industry, like cobalt and lithium. An industrial policy built on minimizing carbon emissions and the use of rare minerals, rather than besting , would pick very different economic winners and losers.
When it comes to, bipartisanship is not necessarily a virtue. The two major parties came together around waging the Vietnam War, confronting the Soviet Union during the Cold War and fighting “terrorism” in the wake of September 11. The first failed, the second was outrageously expensive and nearly ended in nuclear apocalypse, and the third led the country into the infamous “forever wars.”
Selectively challenging operation in Gambia) is appropriate. Going all out in a military, economic and cultural competition with the Asian superpower — and forging a wafer-thin bipartisan consensus to do so — is the height of folly.over its human rights record, its overreach in the South Sea or the conduct of its businesses around the world (like this fish meal
*[This article was originally published by FPIF.]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
Support Fair Observer
We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.
For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads.
In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise.
We publish 2,500+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs
on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This
doesn’t come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost
Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a sustaining member.
Will you support FO’s journalism?
We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.