Congress has joined the game with a vengeance. Leading the charge against China are Republican senators Connie Mack and Spencer Abraham, and Representative Frank Wolf on one side of the aisle, and Democratic Majority Leader Dick Gephardt on the other. But many of these stances are more for domestic politics than foreign policy. For example, Gephardt is doing his best to draw distinctions between his own policy and the policies of Al Gore, the favorite for the Democratic nomination for President in 2000. And Senate Governmental Affairs Chairman Fred Thompson began his recent inquest into campaign finance by charging that the Chinese government was attempting to buy influence in American politics.
These political stances, based less on political pragmatism than ideology, are verging on the ridiculous. Gephardt, an outspoken opponent of Clinton's free trade policies such as NAFTA, is bashing China just as candidate Clinton did in the run-up to his nomination. Americans generally think foreign policy is boring, and inflammatory rhetoric about the evils of the Reds plays better in Peoria than statistics on how many jobs U.S.-China trade creates. Thompson's stance is one-third serious, two-thirds humorous. The serious third is the implication of American officials accepting money in a quid pro quo for policy favors. If it can be proven that any officials did specifically exchange money for favors, those officials should be in very serious trouble. But the first humorous part is the idea that such a quid pro quo could exist, as if a donation of $100,000 from a Chinese-American businessman could influence trade policies worth billions in a particular direction. The second humorous part is the charge itself, that China is trying to influence American policy. The nation that toppled so many Latin American governments that President Ford had to sign an executive order promising not to do it anymore is now objecting to foreign nations trying to buy influence in America? Object away, Mr. Thompson, but hypocrisy abounds.
