Grievances against Chinese manufacturing has no place in today’s America

The US has just experienced a dramatic, once-in-a-century shakeup. Former US President Donald Trump has miraculously cheated death; with the air of a superhero, he is idolised by his supporters once again. While condemning the irrational political violence, even observers like me, who do not support him, cannot help but marvel at his steadfast courage in his twilight years.

Incumbent President Joe Biden, who presented a feeble debate performance, was dealt yet another fatal blow as a result. After all, amid global turmoil and internal division, the US — the world’s sole hegemonic power — is in desperate need of a strong leader; not forgetting that this strong man that is Trump has now appeared as a victim and survivor.

Notably, since US senator JD Vance is from middle America, the Trump-Vance pairing not only balances the old with the young in terms of age, but also directly responds to the needs of the vast inland and rust-belt states for fair treatment and to not become a victim of globalisation. 　　

All this, coupled with the prospect of the pair leading the domestic and foreign affairs of the US, forces even those who dislike and disapprove of them to face the issue.　

As a poor child who grew up in a troubled family and the author of critically acclaimed memoir Hillbilly Elegy, Vance has a deep understanding of the fate of the white working class in rust-belt communities. However, his way of thinking is also locked in the typical rust-belt mindset.

The characteristics of this mindset are: one, believing that whites should live a life of undisturbed privilege, forever basking in the American dream of the mid-20th century, i.e. the perfect life of a white man with a well-paying, stable job to take care of his family and have a house, a car, a dog and a few children. 　　

Two, wallowing in self-pity once their ideal way of life is disrupted due to US-led globalisation from the mid-to-late 20th century. Philosopher Tu Weiming has long analysed in Tizhi Ruxue (《体知儒学》, lit. embodied knowledge and Confucianism) that the “middle class demeanour” of American culture relies on money — everything crumbles as soon as adversity hits. When that happens, those with the rust-belt mindset are unable to comprehend the nature of reforms, much less have the moral courage to face the conglomerates that created the problem.

We must keep in mind that the US is a capitalist country through and through. Even candidates taking the US naturalisation test must know that the basic economic system of the US is capitalist. How would the public dare to challenge the big capitalists?

Similarly, nobody dares to make a fuss even if they are frustrated with flight delays and cancellations — things that could happen in China are simply non-existent, such as pestering the ground crew and receiving a bento or even a cash compensation in return (I once received a 200 RMB (US$28) compensation from the China Southern Airlines).

US-led globalisation has led to the outflow of capital, technology and jobs. Even the imbalance in imports and exports is partly due to American companies outsourcing a significant volume of imports. This simple truth does not need to be resurfaced by today’s Chinese economists as a new phenomenon, expounding that the essence of the “deficit” lies in the fact that US products have travelled abroad and then returned to the US as a “Made in China” product. 　　

In his 1987 reflection Beyond National Borders: Reflections on Japan and the World, Japanese political and economic theorist Kenichi Ohmae had revealed the essence of US trade imbalance with Japan to be simply the presence of American products in Japan.

He analysed the oddity of Japan being consistently scapegoated for job losses in the US during the US elections. He profoundly pointed out the dilemmas in contemporary US culture: when American consumers are making a decision, they want to buy the best product at the cheapest price regardless of the country of origin. But when it comes to jobs and their own country, they become “Americans” again.

In other words, Ohmae saw through the inherent logical contradiction of the Americans in wanting to have their cake and eat it too, as well as their deep-rooted opportunism. They want cheap products but also high-paying jobs; they want to consume foreign products but also to appear patriotic. 　　

Ohmae even bluntly analysed the characteristics of the American people and their management model: due to the existence of a large number of workers with mediocre education and intellectual standards, and who are not dedicated to their work, Americans are adept at turning all instructions into detailed manuals. Here, Ohmae seemed to be praising the US management style, but was in fact sneering at the true quality of the average American.　

As for the Chinese people’s confusion as to why US residents in the rust belt are angry with China for stealing their jobs, Ohmae previously explained it in the context of Japan-US trade ties. Most Americans have no idea how successsful US enterprises have been in becoming “insiders” of the Japanese economy.

I spared no effort in bringing up what was said in an old book simply to underscore that what is happening is nothing really new. The US-China trade war and US rust-belt workers’ grievances against China are just a rehash of complaints about the US-Japan trade imbalance and Japan’s impact on American job losses a few decades ago. Over the past few decades, the same is still happening: white Americans want to have their cake and eat it too. If they are not living a happy life, they would blame external parties. Their lack of strong work capabilities and intellect to understand the real world were long exposed by Ohmae, and they have never improved over the past few decades. 　

Under such circumstances, if someone like Vance who grew up in a troubled family in Ohio still firmly attributes the US’s inland economic and social crisis to the loss of American manufacturing jobs caused by the China-US trade imbalance, then despite his prestigious education, his mindset is no better than the average white American who saw himself as a victim of the US-Japan trade imbalance in the 1970s.　　

In fact, following several years of the trade war, China-made products have become less prominent in the daily lives of Americans. But instead of manufacturing returning to the US as hoped, businesses have moved to Vietnam and Cambodia where labour costs are lower.

So then, will future US politicians and people follow the same logic and support trade wars against Vietnam, Cambodia and Bangladesh, accusing these countries of “stealing jobs”?

If the Trump-Vance pair take office and shape the direction of US-China relations, based on the aforementioned outdated “rust-belt redneck” logic, they would very likely just spout empty slogans such as “bringing manufacturing back to the US” and continue to call for the US’s decoupling from China.

However, after a few years of China-US rivalry, China’s presence in the US market has evidently taken the form of new businesses: viral social media platform TikTok; online shopping models such as Shein and Temu, which are now rivalling US internet retail giants; and numerous Chinese vendors selling their own brand products directly on Amazon.

A significant new trend is that China has shifted from being solely an original equipment manufacturer for American brands to launching its own domestic brands and expanding into the US market, even to the point of influencing American shopping patterns and lifestyles.　　

I know a white American karate coach who is obsessed with shopping on Temu and no longer uses Amazon. As a professional practitioner of karate and Chinese wushu, he is even more familiar with Chinese martial artist and actor Donnie Yen’s background than I am. I guess these phenomena and trends, which can be seen as manifestations of China’s soft power in various aspects, can no longer be summarised and explained by Vance’s bitter childhood and misattributions.

In the case of one of my students from Ohio last semester, apart from hating the Chinese for “stealing jobs”, he could not even complete his assignments and eventually failed my class.　

Consider how, within the Chinese cultural sphere, mainland China and Taiwan have both been astonishingly creative in transforming abandoned industrial bases into cultural and creative parks, commercial spaces, vintage industrial museums, and sports venues after undergoing the painful process of industrial transformation.

Conversely, we watch American rust-belt workers sit idly by as factories are abandoned and become dilapidated. They wallow in self-pity, drown themselves in alcohol and drugs, and resent or fear the outside world. So then, there is reason to believe that some distinctions are just as Tu Weiming had pointed out, rooted deep in the respective cultures of China and the US. 　

While American-style capitalism dominated by elites, geniuses and conglomerates can indeed create a better cradle for the success of a tiny number of talented people such as Elon Musk, it cannot solve the underlying problems of the massive white working class on the margins, who lack good education, intellect and work ethics, and who live in despair and resentment. Instead, it may create an even more serious intellectual polarisation.

If that happens, “Ohio’s elegy” cannot be solved by the outdated solution of “attacking outsourcing”.

This article was first published in Lianhe Zaobao as “特万组合的治国理念了无新意”.

Related: What might a Trump-Vance administration mean for China? | What Trump 2.0 might mean for China