Vance’s dangerous China rhetoric won’t solve America’s problems

Editor’s note: This story was updated to correct the author’s bio. We regret the error.

Imagine a world where America’s complex challenges — from opioid addiction to job losses — could be solved by building a few factories and pointing an accusatory finger at China. 

This is the deceptively simple vision that Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), Republican vice presidential nominee and voice of the heartland, is selling to an anxious nation. But in an era where tweets can move markets and sound bites can shape foreign policy, Vance’s reductive rhetoric isn’t just misguided — it’s a dangerous example of populist scapegoating.

Describing Ohio as a place “forgotten by America’s ruling class in Washington,” Vance paints a picture of a state ravaged by unemployment and drugs, all traceable to the actions of “establishment politicians” and China. 

His narrative is compelling in its simplicity: America was “flooded with cheap Chinese goods, with cheap foreign labor and, in the decades to come, deadly Chinese fentanyl.” 

It’s a story tailor-made for our polarized times, offering a clear villain and a straightforward solution. But like most simple answers to complex problems, it crumbles under scrutiny.

Take the fentanyl crisis, a tragedy that has torn through communities across America. While Chinese-sourced chemicals have indeed fueled this epidemic, its roots lie deep in domestic soil — in our fragmented healthcare system and economic despair and the over-prescription of opioids by American doctors. 

Despite recent improvements in U.S.-China counternarcotics cooperation, overdose deaths remain at crisis levels. This grim reality points to the crucial role of domestic factors — from inadequate mental health resources to economic inequality. 

Blaming China might make for a good sound bite, but it distracts from the complex domestic issues at the heart of the crisis.

Vance’s promise to revive domestic manufacturing by building more factories sounds appealing, especially in regions hard-hit by deindustrialization. But it ignores the seismic shifts in the global economy over the past few decades. While offshoring has certainly impacted American jobs, automation has been an even more significant factor. 

A study by the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University found that about 85 percent of manufacturing job losses between 2000 and 2010 were due to technological change, primarily automation, rather than trade. The manufacturing jobs of the future are likely to require different skills than those of the past, necessitating a focus on education and retraining rather than just factory construction.

Moreover, Vance’s call to “stop the Chinese Communist Party from building their middle class on the backs of American citizens” overlooks the deep economic ties between our two nations. China holds more than $770.7 billion in U.S. Treasury securities, and American companies like Apple and Boeing derive significant portions of their revenue from Chinese markets. 

A precipitous decoupling could lead to market instability, increased costs for American consumers and potential retaliation against U.S. businesses operating in China. In sectors like rare earth minerals, critical for many high-tech applications, China’s near-monopoly means that aggressive decoupling could severely disrupt American industries.

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of Vance’s China-centric worldview is how it narrows our focus at a time when we face a multitude of global challenges. 

Russian aggression continues to threaten European stability and democratic institutions worldwide. Climate change, arguably the most pressing global issue, requires unprecedented international cooperation — including with China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases. 

Emerging challenges like global pandemics, cybersecurity threats and the rise of artificial intelligence demand a diversified and flexible foreign policy approach that extends far beyond a single adversarial relationship.

In light of these complexities, Vance’s populist message blaming China falls short of providing a comprehensive strategy for addressing America’s domestic and international challenges. Instead of simplistic narratives of blame and protectionism, we need nuanced approaches that address the root causes of our problems.

So what would a more practical approach look like? 

First, to tackle the opioid crisis, we need comprehensive healthcare reform that includes expanded access to mental health services and addiction treatment. We should also invest in economic revitalization programs for hard-hit communities, focusing on diversifying local economies rather than promising a return to past industries.

Second, instead of simply blaming China for job losses, we must invest heavily in education and workforce development. This means not only improving K-12 education but also expanding vocational training programs and partnerships with community colleges to prepare workers for the high-tech manufacturing jobs of the future.

Finally, on the international front, we need a balanced China policy that goes beyond populist rhetoric. This should include targeted measures to address unfair trade practices and intellectual property theft while maintaining beneficial economic ties and cooperation on global issues like climate change. 

We should also reinvigorate our alliances in the Asia-Pacific region as a counterbalance to China’s influence, rather than pursuing an isolationist approach.

Vance’s rhetoric may win votes, but won’t solve America’s problems. The challenges facing Ohio and the nation as a whole are complex and interrelated, requiring thoughtful, nuanced solutions rather than enemies to fault. 

As we navigate the intricacies of the 21st-century global economy and geopolitical landscape, we need leaders who can offer more than simplistic sound bites about a foreign boogeyman.

American leadership needs to learn to respect the intelligence of the American people enough to offer real solutions. Vance’s China gambit might play well in the short term, but in the long run, it’s a dangerous distraction from the real work that needs to be done to secure America’s future in an increasingly complex world. 

The path forward lies not in populist finger-pointing, but in pragmatic policies that address our domestic challenges head-on while engaging thoughtfully with the global community.

Shaoyu Yuan is an author and scholar of international relations. He is a research fellow at Rutgers University’s Division of Global Affairs.