For voters and the press, a respectful suggestion: For a candidate’s China views and ties, 2024 is more important than 2009, and much more important than 1994. America’s view of China has changed sharply in the last 15 years. What matters is what we’re doing now and what we’re going to do, not what we did and said 20 years ago. This is especially true in the presidential election, plus in races like Casey v. McCormick in Pennsylvania.

Vice President Harris’ choice of Tim Walz as her running mate spawned comments on Walz’s history with China. It’s barely an exaggeration to say no one should care. Should Republicans be vilified now for George Bush senior protecting China ties after Tiananmen or George Bush junior fiddling while the trade deficit burns? Should Democrats be vilified for Bill Clinton enabling China’s entry into the World Trade Organization?

No. Or at least, no longer. The same is true for Governor Walz’s views of China in the 1990’s. For more than three decades, both parties agreed the US should engage the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as an important global partner. Point the finger at the other side about their long-ago China choices and fingers can and will get pointed back at your side. Offer good China policies now and badly aged quotes from the 2000’s should be irrelevant. 

The overdue shift in Americans’ views of the PRC picked up steam in 2015, thanks in no small part to candidate Donald Trump’s blunt language regarding the relationship. For this reason, candidates’ records on China for the past 10 years should count much more than the previous 30. This is especially true because the broad consensus that we should engage China has given way to a broad consensus that we should criticize China, yet still do very little.

Oddly, possibly the biggest culprit in talking but not acting was President Trump. Five years ago, I wrote about how 2015–16 candidate Trump would not be happy with 2019 President Trump on China. For example, candidate Trump said the PRC was draining money from the US, but President Trump did nothing to stop American investment in Chinese stocks and bonds from soaring $780 billion in his four years.

Does 2024 candidate Trump stand by that—should large amounts of American money support Chinese firms? If not, what would he do about it? The last question should also be posed to Vice President Harris, because the Biden administration has talked for three years on this issue and done nothing (an executive order remains unimplemented). Governor Walz’s view of this counts, not what he said in 1990.

President Trump in early 2020 attacked controls on technology transfer to China, complaining about the “always used National Security excuse.” Does Senator Vance agree? The Biden administration has moved to restrict technology transfer but consistently leaves loopholes that help the Chinese semiconductor industry, both directly and indirectly. Harris and Walz should say whether they’d follow the same path.

The biggest US-PRC economic issue is supply chains. The Covid crisis illustrated that America had become dependent on China for key products. Governor Walz faced the consequences of that dependence in Minnesota—what did he learn? President Trump wanted to increase US ties to China through his phase one trade deal. Does Senator Vance think that’s a good idea?

Beyond trade and investment, there’s the PRC’s repression in Xinjiang and Tibet and aggression in the South China Sea. Beijing looking to subjugate Taiwan is one of the few risks in the next four years that could turn out worse than the pandemic. Governor Walz has only recently become a national politician. Don’t waste time on 1995–98 when there are so many potentially vital China questions to ask him about for 2025–28.

If the country and candidates aren’t interested in US-China relations, fine. Immigration, inflation, and Israel are big issues, and that’s just one letter’s worth. But if we’re talking China, it should be about 2025 and beyond. There are major challenges for America in facing Xi Jinping’s regime. We need to learn how leaders will respond to those challenges, not recall what they thought in the 20th century.

The post China in the Election: Look Forward, Not Back appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.