Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber

A few weeks ago, I said I would write about the trade platforms of the two political parties once the Democrats produced one. They have now done so, and with both conventions over and the campaign moving into high gear, now is a good time to take a look at the platforms. It is reasonable to ask why someone would bother with party platforms since no one pays much attention to them. However, since we have one candidate who obsesses over trade, we know it will be an issue in the election—indeed, it already is. Even if the other candidate has not made trade a priority, Vice President Kamala Harris will have to respond and has already begun to do so.

So, let’s take a look at the two platforms.

In the Republican platform, trade gets its own chapter, but it is still less than a page. (The entire platform is only 16 pages.) The tone is set via the chapter title—“PROTECT AMERICAN WORKERS AND FARMERS FROM UNFAIR TRADE”—and the introductory commitment: “The Republican Party stands for a patriotic ‘America First’ Economic Policy.” That is defined as prioritizing “Domestic Production” and ensuring “National Independence in essential goods and services.” Implementing that goal means supporting “baseline Tariffs on Foreign-made goods, [passing] the Trump Reciprocal Trade Act, and [responding] to unfair Trading practices.” The platform then repeats the canard that as tariffs go up, “Taxes on American Workers, Families, and Businesses can come down.” (There are a lot of capital letters in the Republican platform.)

Concerning China, the platform promises to revoke “China’s Most Favored Nation status, phase out imports of essential goods, and stop China from buying American Real Estate and Industries.” It also pledges to save the U.S. auto industry by, among other things, preventing the importation of Chinese cars.

The platform concludes with several statements about bringing supply chains back home, promoting Buy American and Hire American policies, and banning federal procurement from companies that outsource jobs.

This is typical of former president Donald Trump. There is one narrative and one tool. The United States is a victim of unscrupulous foreigners out to destroy us, and the remedy is tariffs. The phrase “baseline Tariffs” appears to refer to Trump’s across-the-board 10 or 20 percent tariff, and the Trump Reciprocal Trade Act proposes that the United States should adjust tariffs to match those of its trading partners on equivalent goods. These proposals have been widely discredited by most economists as inflationary and destructive to the global trading system.

The Democratic platform is much longer—some 90 pages—compared to the Republican Platform, though the trade section is only about one page as well. Essentially, the Democratic platform echoes the “trade policy for workers” rhetoric that has been the hallmark of this administration: “For too long, America’s trade policies and approach to the global economy let middle-class jobs move offshore, hollowed out our supply chains, rewarded corporate CEOs instead of valuing workers, and failed to generate inclusive economic growth.”

The strategy in the platform focuses on supply chain resiliency and “setting high standards for labor, environmental practices, trusted technology, and good governance,” reflecting the administration’s determination to emphasize issues that have historically been peripheral to trade policy. A nod is given to cooperation with allies and partners through references to “the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity, and bilateral initiatives such as the U.S.-Kenya Strategic Trade and Investment Partnership,” but as the page rolls on, it becomes apparent that the primary focus is to “put American workers first.” In projecting what would have been President Joe Biden’s second term, the platform states that “He will pursue modern industrial policies, make strategic public investments to fill in where markets cannot, [and] work to secure our supply chains on critical technologies.”

In contrast to the Republican platform, there is a short section on artificial intelligence and the risk it presents to national security as well as explicit criticism of Trump. (The Republicans avoided direct criticism of Biden, at least in the trade portion.)

There are two conclusions to be drawn from the platforms. First, what we’ve seen is what we’re going to get—more of the same. The Republicans’ proposals are more extreme but not fundamentally different from Trump’s trade policy when he was in office. The Democrats’ platform is a pledge to keep on doing what they’ve been doing.

Second, both parties come to trade from very different perspectives, but they don’t end up very far apart. The Trump narrative frames the United States as a victim, with the solution being to rebalance trade by penalizing the foreign parties that have been taking advantage of us. The Democrats’ narrative frames trade as a tool that has helped big companies and their executives, hurt workers, and failed to improve the climate, sustainability, or worker and human rights. For Trump, we are all victims. For Harris, only workers are victims.

Despite the difference in philosophy, looking at what the two parties have actually done shows great similarities in tools—both use tariffs; in attitudes toward the multilateral trading system—both have undermined it (although the Democrats deny this); and in the economy—both would rebuild domestic manufacturing at the expense of trade.

This is depressing. Both parties are moving backward, trying to fend off globalization like King Canute—who knew in advance, unlike Trump and Harris, he was going to fail—ordering the tide to stop coming in. They will be no more effective than Canute, but they will cause a lot of disruption in the process. A better approach would be to embrace trade as an agent of growth and change while doing a much better job of assisting the victims of that change. Which platform is Tweedledumb, and which is Tweedledumber? You decide. Neither rises to the occasion nor meets the nation’s needs.

William Reinsch holds the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.