Strategies, Ideologies, and Campaign Speeches

The editorial position of the Wall Street Journal is neither Republican nor Democratic, progressive nor conservative. It is pro-business and neoliberal. Without that understanding this editorial is incomprehensible. With that understanding it is completely clear. The editors don’t much care for the Biden Administration’s approach to China:

How would Mr. Biden’s approach to China differ from Donald Trump’s ? The Biden Administration, she said, would “strengthen our alliances through bilateral, regional, and multilateral engagement.” She cited a settlement this summer with the European Union that resolved a 17-year feud over subsidies for Boeing and Airbus. That’s great, but what else? She couldn’t say.

Mr. Biden has maintained the Trump tariffs on European steel and aluminum, which have harmed U.S. businesses and made it harder to present a united allied front against China. But Ms. Tai wouldn’t commit to lifting those tariffs. Her plan is to “take a situation of tension [with Europe] and work through it to convert it into a partnership and collaboration.” This isn’t marriage counseling.

Mr. Trump made a strategic and economic blunder by pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The U.S. withdrawal weakened U.S. economic influence in the region, and the other countries went ahead with what has become the CPTPP. Last month China applied to join that trade deal. How will President Biden respond?

Ms. Tai responded with diplomatic mush: “The TPP, which is the basis for the CPTPP, was something that was negotiated several years ago now. . . . And the world economy has shown us realities in the intervening years that I think we really have to pay attention to. So, you know, in terms of our continued investment and engagement with our partners and allies in the Indo-Pacific, I think what we need to do is to fully engage and address the realities and challenges that we see today.”

Asked if she thinks it’s even possible for China to change its predatory trade habits, she replied: “I think, like with anything else in life, you’ve got to look at where you’ve come from to figure out, if you’ve not gotten to where you want to go, how you correct course.” The Biden Administration’s approach “is very much about being thoughtful.”

All of this reveals an Administration that doesn’t appear to have a strategy to deal with China beyond talking tough. One explanation may be that the Administration’s main—only—priority with China is gaining a pledge to reduce carbon dioxide emissions before the climate confab in Glasgow next month.

The Biden Administration is completely understandable, too. Doing the opposite of Trump is neither strategic nor ideological but completely political. When looked at as talking points in a campaign speech, it all makes perfect sense. As strategy or ideology? Not so much.

The difference between such “mush” and practical policy is that practical policy necessarily changes in response to changing events. That is the wisdom in Lord Palmerston’s quip, “We have no permanent allies only permanent interests” and the foolishness in being reflexively pro-Trump, reflexively anti-Trump, reflexively anti-China, or reflexively pro-China. If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out. Pursuing strategic interest is everything. Politics and ideology are nothing.