One thing has become increasingly clear this campaign season. Bashing China like a proverbial punching bag is the safest campaign move in human history. There isn’t one voter who will take offense to Mitt and Barack ripping into China as an unfair trader and currency manipulator. It’s like a Giants and an Eagles fan arguing about who the better team is and then coming to the anti climactic conclusion that “the Cowboys suck”.

Recently, however, it has been interesting to see how the candidates have been using China as a means of slinging mud at each other. Romney has not hesitated to call Obama out for being “soft” against China. He claims that, if elected, he will immediately call China a currency manipulator publicly. A careful look at Obama’s tenure as President will show that Romney’s statements are exaggerated.

Now, Obama is calling out Romney for having hefty investments in China. This seems a bit ridiculous and a lame continuation of the Obama campaign’s attempt to label Romney an elitist. China is one of the biggest global economic forces. As a result, plenty of Americans are invested in China in one way or another. Just because Romney is more wealthy and has more money abroad, doesn’t necessarily mean he deserves to be attacked over that.

What do you think? Why has “bashing China” been so popular over the years among presidential candidates? Do you find any merit in either candidate’s statements about their opponent’s relation to China?

Advertisements