“Wall” or “ladder”: value conflicts of the US globalization process and Trump administration’s policy options

SUN Tianhao1 SHENG Bin2

(1.Institute of International Economics, Nankai University)
(2.School of Economics, Nankai University)

【Abstract】The longest government shutdown in US history reflects not only political wrestling between the Republicans and Democrats but also value conflicts over globalization among the US public. The US is the dominant force and beneficiary of the second round of economic globalization. Its traditional globalization values emphasize liberalization and marketization and promote global economic liberalism on this basis. However, against the backdrop of a weakening global economic recovery and growing income inequality, anti-globalization sentiment is gaining momentum in the US. The anti-globalization trend is the main reason for value conflicts in the process of globalization in the US. The people who suffer from increasing income inequality due to globalization and the beneficiaries of globalization argue about and play games on the policies of economic globalization including immigration, trade, and financial policies. At the same time, the value conflicts promote the Trump administration to adopt an America First strategy. This policy choice is a manifestation of political populism, economic nativism, trade protectionism, and neo-isolationism in international relations. This is the result of the Trump administration’s choosing a less costly policy in the impossible trilemma of globalization.

【Keywords】 US politics; society and culture; border wall; anti-globalization trend; globalization paradox; Trump administration;

【DOI】

【Funds】 Humanities and Social Sciences Key Research Base Project of the Ministry of Education (ZX20170221).

Download this article

(Translated by GU Ming)

    Footnote

    [1]. (1) According to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 and the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the effective discretionary spending must be supported by the corresponding annual government expenditure budget. In the event that the annual government expenditure budget is delayed, the government may authorize the budget through continuing resolutions. If neither of these situations can show up in time, there will be a funding gap. In 1981, US Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti interpreted the Antideficiency Act, requesting the closure of affected institutions and services in the event of a funding gap. According to this interpretation, when the government has a funding gap, it is necessary to close the institutions with non-essential services and start the government shutdown. [^Back]

    [2]. (2) President Donald J. Trump’s Address to the Nation on the Crisis at the Border, January 8, 2019, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-address-nation-crisis-border/, 2019. 1. 19. [^Back]

    [3]. (3) Nancy Pelosi, “Forget the Wall, Let’s Fund Ports of Entry Instead,” January 17, 2019, available at https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/pelosi-forget-the-wall-lets-fund-ports-of-entry-instead, 2019. 1. 20. [^Back]

    [4]. (4) Robert Frost, “Mending Wall,” available at https://m.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/mending-wall, 2019. 1. 20. [^Back]

    [5]. (5) Present Obama at The DNC, “The American Dream Is Something No Wall Can Ever Contain,” July 28, 2016, available at https://thetab.com/us/2016/07/28/barack-obama-the-american-dream-is-something-no-wall-will-ever-contain-42246, 2019. 1. 21. [^Back]

    [6]. (6) Roland Robertson, Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture (Sage Publication Ltd, 1992), pp. 10–13. [^Back]

    [7]. (7) Li, J. & Xiao, Y. Journal of Renmin University of China (中国人民大学学报), (1): 95–98 (2019). [^Back]

    [8]. (8) Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1996), pp. 126–130. [^Back]

    [9]. (9) Harold James, The End of Globalization: Lessons from the Great Depression (Harvard University Press, 2001), pp. 130–135. [^Back]

    [10]. (10) Sheng, B. & Ma, B. Journal of Social Sciences (社会科学), (8): 15–23 (2018). [^Back]

    [11]. (11) Zheng, Y. World Economics and Politics (世界经济与政治), (12): 138–142 (2018). [^Back]

    [12]. (12) Li, Q. Ethno-National Studies (民族研究), (6): 23–25 (2003). [^Back]

    [13]. (13) Sheng, B. & Zong, W. Chinese Social Sciences Today (中国社会科学报), (4) (2016-12-23). [^Back]

    [14]. (14) Norm Chomsky, Profit Over People: Neoliberalism and Global Order (Seven Stories Press, 1999), pp. 45–60. [^Back]

    [15]. (15) [America] Stiglitz, J. Globalization and Its Discontents. Li, Y. & Zhang, T. (trans.) Beijing: China Machine Press, 205–208 (2010). [^Back]

    [16]. (16) Tong, J. & Liu, C. Economic Perspectives (经济学动态), (7): 20–22 (2018). [^Back]

    [17]. (17) [America] Gilbert, F. & Large, D. History of Modern Europe (Vol. 6). Gao, D. (trans.) Beijing: CITIC Press Group, 788–789 (2016). [^Back]

    [18]. (18) Zhang, W. The Chinese Journal of American Studies (美国研究), (6): 110–113 (2018). [^Back]

    [19]. (19) The data are from the website of US’ Bureau of Labor Statistics, see https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES3000000001amp%253bdata_tool=XGtable&output_view=data&include_graphs=true, the date of access: January 10, 2019. [^Back]

    [20]. (20) Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman, “Economic Growth in the United States: A Tale of Two Countries,” available at http://equita-blegrowth.org/research-analysis/economic-growth-in-the-united-states-a-tale-of-two-countries, 2019. 1. 18. [^Back]

    [21]. (21) Diao, D. Contemporary International Relations (现代国际关系), (4): 33–39 (2016). [^Back]

    [22]. (22) Xu, M. Journal of Social Sciences (社会科学), (7): 36–37 (2017). [^Back]

    [23]. (23) Zhao, M. The Journal of International Studies (国际政治研究), (4): 44–46 (2018). [^Back]

    [24]. (24) Wang, L. & Liu, Z. Social Sciences Abroad (国外社会科学), (3): 49–50 (2018). [^Back]

    [25]. (25) Dani Rodrik, “How Far Will International Economies Have Bigger Governments,” Journal of Political Economy, 1998, Vol. 106, No. 5, pp. 997–1032. [^Back]

    [26]. (26) Dani Rodrik, The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy (New York and London: W. W. Norton, 2011), pp. 126–136. [^Back]

    [27]. (27) Max Boot, “Trump’s‘America First’ Is the Twilight of American Exceptionalism,” Foreign Policy, November 22, 2016. [^Back]

    [28]. (28) Rebecca Savransky, “Majority of Americans Approves of Trump’s ‘America First’ Message,” January 25, 2017, available at https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/poll-voters-liked-trumps-inaugural-address-234148, 2019. 1. 20. [^Back]

    [29]. (29) Diao, D. Foreign Affairs Review (外交评论), (2): 67–69 (2017). [^Back]

    [30]. (30) Yan, X. Quarterly Journal of International Politics (国际政治科学), (6) (2017). [^Back]

    [31]. (31) Lin, H. The Journal of International Studies (国际政治研究), (1): 42–43 (2017). [^Back]

    [32]. (32) “President Donald J. Trump’s Address To A Joint SESSION of Congress,” February 28, 2017, available at https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/donald-trump-speech-transcript-full-text, 2019. 1. 23. [^Back]

    [33]. (33) Gerald Friedman, “Nativism: As American as (Rotten) Apple Pie,” November 16, 2016, available at http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/2016/1116friedman.html, 2019. 1. 22. [^Back]

    [34]. (34) Wang, H. Fudan Journal (Social Sciences Edition) (复旦学报(社会科学版)), (6): 139–142 (2017). [^Back]

    [35]. (35) The full name of this act is Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. [^Back]

    [36]. (36) Sheng, B. & Zong, W. Nankai Journal (Philosophy, Literature and Social Science Edition) (南开学报(哲学社会科学版)), (5): 47 (2017). [^Back]

    [37]. (37) Section 232 is derived from the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, and it investigates whether the import of specific products threatens the US national security. According to it, it should be reported to the President within 270 days after the case is investigated, and the President should decide within 90 days whether to take measures on the import of related products. [^Back]

    [38]. (38) The Section 301 investigation originates from Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974. This article authorizes US trade representatives to initiate investigations into unreasonable or unfair trade practices of other countries and to recommend the US President to impose unilateral sanctions after the investigation is completed. [^Back]

    [39]. (39) To deal with Sino-US trade frictions, the US Department of Agriculture will directly provide USD 12 billion subsidies for producers of soybeans, sorghum, and so on through commodity credit companies to purchase agricultural products in their hands. [^Back]

    [40]. (40) “GOP Reaction to Trump Tariffs Is Fast, Furious and Negative,” March 1, 2018, available at https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/gop-reaction-trump-tariffs-fast-furious-negative, 2019. 1. 24. [^Back]

    [41]. (41) “Dems Tread Cautiously on Trump’s Tariffs,” March 9, 2018, available at https://thehill.com/policy/finance/377514-dems-tread-cautiously-on-trumps-tariffs, 2019. 1. 24. [^Back]

    [42]. (42) Han, Z. & Yue, F. The Chinese Journal of American Studies (美国研究), (5): 12 (2017). [^Back]

This Article

ISSN:1002-8986

CN: 11-1170/C

Vol 33, No. 04, Pages 21-35+5-6

August 2019

Downloads:0

Share
Article Outline

Abstract

  • 1 Border wall dispute and the value orientation of globalization in the US traditional sense
  • 2 Anti-globalization trend and value conflicts of the US in the process of globalization
  • 3 Globalization paradox and its impact on the US politics
  • 4 Policy choices of the Trump administration
  • Conclusion
  • Footnote