Often in political discourse we encounter statements that initially seem to make sense but that, when examined, turn out to be silly. Here’s a recent example from a Chatham House Royal Institute of International Affairs paper: “The current dispute between the U.S. and China goes far beyond trade tariffs and tit-for-tat reprisals: The underlying driver is a race for global technological supremacy.”
This grammatically impeccable statement appears to make a claim whose meaning is deeply important. Yet in fact this statement is meaningless.
First, the dispute to which the statement refers is not between the U.S. and China or between Americans and the Chinese people. This dispute, instead, is between only the national governments of both countries. This difference is significant.
To assume that millions of individuals share the same interests just because they’re citizens of the same country is a profound error. As do the Chinese people, we Americans differ amongst ourselves in the particular experiences and arrangements in which each of us finds pleasure, pain and purpose. And we differ also in our economic interests.
A small handful of Americans, for instance, benefit if the U.S. government raises tariffs on imports from China, but a much larger number suffer. Acknowledging this reality immediately nullifies the presumption that the interests for which Washington’s trade negotiators are bargaining are interests shared by all Americans.
Consider me, a typical American in this regard. I produce no goods that compete with Chinese imports, but I consume a great many goods made in China, and by American producers who compete with Chinese imports. And so Donald Trump’s negotiating with Beijing to increase American exports and decrease American imports is against my interest. I sincerely hope that in this trade dispute with Beijing Trump’s bargaining tactics fail.
Also meaningless is the phrase “global technological supremacy.” Technology is not akin to a sports league, with a single criterion for ranking participants’ relative success. There are countless varieties of technology. Success on one technological front not only does not imply success on other such fronts, but it practically requires lack of success on other technological fronts.
America might, for example, be home to the most successful companies at producing advanced aerospace products. But to achieve this “first-place” distinction requires that not as many workers, and not as much capital and innovative effort, be devoted in the U.S. to consumer electronics and other high-tech industries.
And so given that the achievement of supremacy in one particular high-tech field requires sacrificing supremacy in other high-tech fields, it makes zero sense to talk about a country winning the “race for global technological supremacy.” To be “supreme” at “global technology,” how large must America’s margin of superiority at aerospace production be in order to overcome our lack of supremacy at producing consumer electronics or advanced chemicals?
Because we understand the reality of such trade-offs in our individual lives, we’d laugh at a man who declares that he aims to win the race for “global skill supremacy.” Skill in what endeavor? A person might well become the world’s most skilled clarinetist, but precisely by doing so that person avoids learning the skills of a neurosurgeon and auto mechanic.
All talk of a country winning “a race for global technological supremacy” is just as meaningless — indeed, as silly — as is talk of a man winning a race for global skill supremacy.
