Ugly Anti-China Political Ads

Technology had the potential to free us, to do what we wanted to do most for each other. Globilization, the same. But everyone is so scared and angry now they are about to lose it all. We have to show people how they can benefit from both while there is still time. I for one do not want to go back to a world where if one’s parents cannot guarantee one’s survival we don’t have a chance.

I don’t think most Americans would begrudge any improvement in Chinese standards of living – if it didn’t have to come at Americans’ expense.

But it HAS come at Americans’ expense. Good God, this may be the most effective political ad of the cycle. In those communities clinging to the hillsides of western Pennsylvania, their inhabitants left behind as Pittsburgh transitioned to a “knowledge,” health-care and high-tech economy? This is a home run.

That our industrial/economic policy has lifted millions out of poverty on the other side of the globe. That’s great. But when asked – would you willingly sacrifice your own job, sometimes your own community, in order to accomplish this, the answer would be an overwhelming “no.” But of course, these Americans weren’t asked.

Also I don’t consider this ad to be an attack on the Chinese, if our jobs and money were all going to England, I would feel the same way about England. So I don’t think xenophobia means what you think it means either.

Jobs that go away because of technology just don’t exist anymore, and most people can *see* the benefits (e.g., there are no more jobs at Blockbuster because Netflix by mail and streaming does it better and cheaper). But jobs that have been outsourced seem to still exist: They’ve just been moved to where you can no longer get them.

I agree with other commentators here: I don’t see any xenophobia here. People would be just as upset if jobs that once existed in their district were being sent to India, Israel, Mexico or Canada with no plan or inducements to replace them with other jobs that will allow them to support their families at least as well or better. Toomey’s apparent answer to these people (and your apparent answer, as well) is: “It sucks to be you.”

If Pat Toomey wants to make an affirmative case to his constituents about why modernization in China when things are stagnant or falling apart in their districts is a good thing for them, he can make that case. If he wants to explain to his constituents how they benefit by having cheaper goods in the stores when THEY can’t afford them because the jobs they used to have are being done for pennies on the dollar by people in other countries, he can do that. And you’re right, there is an affirmative case that can be made, though it may not be easy, given the level of basic economic education in this country, especially among those who have been displaced. But if he wants people to understand and support it, he needs to get out there and make that case–or, more accurately, he should have started a long time ago.