With Anti-China Protectionism, the Left Is Aiding Trump’s Xenophobic Agenda

Tobita Chow

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a retreat with Republican lawmakers at Camp David in Thurmont, Maryland, January 6, 2018. (SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

Because Chi­na is increas­ing­ly seen as a threat to U.S. glob­al hege­mo­ny, anti-Chi­na nation­al­ism is on the rise in Amer­i­can pol­i­tics. Late last sum­mer, Steve Ban­non spoke at the Coun­cil on For­eign Rela­tions and dis­cov­ered—much to his sur­prise—that his hawk­ish approach to Chi­na had gone main­stream. Ear­ly this year, Defense Sec­re­tary James Mat­tis, who is in what pass­es as the mod­er­ate fac­tion in the Don­ald Trump White House, released the 2018 Nation­al Defense Strat­e­gy, stat­ing that Inter-state strate­gic com­pe­ti­tion, not ter­ror­ism, is now the pri­ma­ry con­cern in U.S. nation­al secu­ri­ty.” Chi­na leads the list of strate­gic com­peti­tors” cit­ed by the Depart­ment of Defense. In May, Mike Allen and Jim Van­de­Hei warned at Axios that Chi­na is the great­est, grow­ing threat to Amer­i­ca” and sug­gest­ed that a smart politi­cian could turn Chi­na into a uni­fy­ing vil­lain on vir­tu­al­ly every top­ic.” Ear­li­er this month, the pun­dit Matt Ygle­sias appeared to agree, tweet­ing, I’m sort of com­ing around to the view that anti-Chi­na pol­i­tics could be the uni­fy­ing nation­al project we need.”

This mount­ing anti-Chi­na nation­al­ism is bring­ing the Unit­ed States to the brink of a poten­tial­ly dis­as­trous trade war between the world’s two largest economies, with bipar­ti­san sup­port. The Trump admin­is­tra­tion, after months of threat­en­ing a trade war with Chi­na, imposed tar­iffs on $34 bil­lion of imports from Chi­na last Fri­day, and threat­ened to extend this to cov­er all $500 bil­lion of imports.

This emerg­ing trade war with Chi­na will lead to job loss in the U.S. agri­cul­ture, oil and auto indus­tries that are con­cen­trat­ed in coun­ties that vot­ed for Trump. This is a tremen­dous oppor­tu­ni­ty for Democ­rats to attack the tar­iffs in order to split Trump’s base among busi­ness lead­ers and blue-col­lar work­ers, but they show no sign of doing so. To the con­trary, Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), the top Demo­c­rat in the Sen­ate, respond­ed with strong approval when the first round of tar­iffs were orig­i­nal­ly announced, tweet­ing on June 15 that the president’s actions on Chi­na are on the mon­ey.” So far, Democ­rats have saved their sharpest crit­i­cism of Trump’s approach to Chi­na for when he called for an ease of sanc­tions on Chi­nese tele­com giant ZTE in order to save it from going out of busi­ness entire­ly, an act which Democ­rats from both cen­trist and pro­gres­sive wings of the par­ty saw as too lenient. In oth­er words, top Democ­rats are com­pet­ing with Trump to see who can be the most hawk­ish anti-Chi­na nationalist.

The offi­cial jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for the tar­iffs cen­ters on accu­sa­tions of intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty theft, yet the lead­ers of the two par­ties are not paus­ing to eval­u­ate the strength of the theft accu­sa­tions. Some com­men­ta­tors are rais­ing objec­tions, includ­ing Yale’s Stephen Roach, who has argued that the Trump administration’s case is flawed and comes out of a scape­goat men­tal­i­ty.” But these argu­ments are beside the point. The offi­cial case does not need to be log­i­cal in order to be polit­i­cal­ly effec­tive, if it is just a polit­i­cal tool in the ser­vice of already agreed-upon goals.

Lead­ers in both par­ties share the fun­da­men­tal goal of halt­ing China’s rise rel­a­tive to the Unit­ed States as an eco­nom­ic pow­er and, in par­tic­u­lar, as a leader in glob­al tech indus­tries. Nei­ther par­ty seems to be grap­pling with the fact that this is some­thing that the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment has lit­tle choice but to main­tain its eco­nom­ic growth and rise up the val­ue chain from low­er-pro­duc­tiv­i­ty man­u­fac­tur­ing to tech indus­tries, which is the government’s only hope of deliv­er­ing pover­ty reduc­tion and con­tin­ued upward mobil­i­ty to the Chi­nese peo­ple. This is the régime’s side of an unwrit­ten con­tract” with its pop­u­lace, with­out which it is at risk of los­ing pop­u­lar legit­i­ma­cy. It is there­fore unrea­son­able and futile to expect the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment to agree to mea­sures that would slow China’s rise in the glob­al econ­o­my or the glob­al tech sec­tor. U.S. polit­i­cal lead­ers have adopt­ed a goal to con­tain China’s rise that will demand esca­lat­ing con­flict with China.

Anti-Chi­nese racial pro­fil­ing on the rise

These polit­i­cal efforts to hedge against Chi­na are fuel­ing anti-Chi­nese racism with­in the Unit­ed States. The tenor of this racism, and its grip in main­stream pol­i­tics, is expressed well by Chris­t­ian Caryl, an opin­ions edi­tor at The Wash­ing­ton Post, who warns that Chi­na has a strat­e­gy to tap the huge eth­nic Chi­nese dias­po­ra in the Unit­ed States and else­where as foot sol­diers in China’s influ­ence cam­paigns.” This image of an entire eth­nic dias­po­ra” as a poten­tial fifth col­umn with­in U.S. soci­ety recalls the intern­ment of Japan­ese-Amer­i­cans in WWII.

This racist stereo­type is reflect­ed in recent poli­cies and the state­ments of polit­i­cal lead­ers. Accord­ing to a white paper pub­lished by the Com­mit­tee of 100, there is evi­dence that the FBI engages in racial pro­fil­ing against peo­ple of Chi­nese and oth­er Asian descent in eco­nom­ic espi­onage cas­es. In two high-pro­file cas­es, nat­u­ral­ized Chi­nese-Amer­i­can cit­i­zens, Sher­ry Chen and Xiaox­ing Xi, were false­ly accused of being Chi­nese spies steal­ing intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty from the Unit­ed States. In both cas­es, the charges were lat­er dropped. Chen’s charges were dropped with­out expla­na­tion, while in Xi’s case the inves­ti­ga­tors admit­ted that they had sim­ply mis­un­der­stood the tech­nol­o­gy that Xi works with. In Feb­ru­ary, Trump’s FBI Direc­tor Chris Wray con­firmed this insti­tu­tion­al­ized racism when he declared in a hear­ing that the Chi­nese threat” is not just a whole of gov­ern­ment threat, but a whole-of-soci­ety threat.”

More recent­ly, the Trump admin­is­tra­tion announced new restric­tions on visas for peo­ple from Chi­na, includ­ing on inter­na­tion­al stu­dents study­ing in some fields of sci­ence and tech­nol­o­gy. This is also meant to be a mea­sure to counter eco­nom­ic espi­onage” and the theft of intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty. This pol­i­cy again assumes every­one from Chi­na to be a poten­tial threat to the U.S. econ­o­my and nation­al secu­ri­ty. Sen­a­tor Mar­co Rubio wel­comed this new pol­i­cy, tweet­ing, Impos­ing lim­its on some Chi­nese visas may seem harsh, but it’s nec­es­sary. #Chi­na pos­es unprece­dent­ed threat. Stu­dent & aca­d­e­m­ic visas are anoth­er weapon they use against us in their cam­paign to steal & cheat their way to world dom­i­nance.” These visa restric­tions have been crit­i­cized by uni­ver­si­ty lob­by groups, because tuition from Chi­nese inter­na­tion­al stu­dents has become a finan­cial life­line for many U.S. uni­ver­si­ties in the face of reduced pub­lic fund­ing for high­er edu­ca­tion. The restric­tions, how­ev­er, have been large­ly over­looked by the pro­gres­sive move­ment — and the lack of resis­tance is an open invi­ta­tion to esca­la­tion against this population.

These trends must be exam­ined in light of long-stand­ing racist stereo­types about Chi­nese peo­ple and oth­er Asians. In the Unit­ed States and much of the West­ern world, Asians are seen as sources of pure labor pow­er — max­i­mal­ly effi­cient work­ers in whom all human capac­i­ties that are use­ful for work (obe­di­ence, effi­cien­cy, self-dis­ci­pline, self-denial, stu­dious­ness) are overde­vel­oped, while all oth­er aspects of human­i­ty that do not direct­ly con­tribute to work (fam­i­ly life, play, cre­ativ­i­ty, emo­tion, friend­ship, auton­o­my) are degrad­ed, under­de­vel­oped or non-exis­tent. This frame­work por­trays Asians as a step removed from robots. This is espe­cial­ly true of East Asians, who are at the cen­ter of the ambigu­ous and incon­sis­tent cat­e­go­ry of Asian” in the U.S. racial imagination.

These racist ideas show up through­out these anti-Chi­nese trends in both domes­tic and for­eign pol­i­cy. The racist image of Chi­nese peo­ple as a source of pure eco­nom­ic effi­cien­cy makes it easy to see them as lit­tle more than a com­pet­i­tive threat to oth­er work­ers. The racist assump­tion that Chi­nese peo­ple lack capac­i­ties for auton­o­my or cre­ativ­i­ty makes it easy to see them as lit­tle more than appendages of the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment. As we see in the quotes above, it is com­mon to make Chi­nese peo­ple invis­i­ble as indi­vid­u­als, and to imag­ine them instead as parts of a face­less mass called Chi­na.”

Racism and for­eign policy

These racist ideas also impact the approach the U.S. government’s for­eign pol­i­cy approach to Chi­na, and help explain why Chi­na (and by exten­sion, the Chi­nese dias­po­ra) is seen as such a fun­da­men­tal threat. A deep and sub­tle form of racism is at work when U.S. elites try to under­stand China’s present actions as the rep­e­ti­tion of unchang­ing pat­terns estab­lished dur­ing pre­mod­ern times. For­eign pol­i­cy ana­lysts claim that Pres­i­dent Xi Jin­ping is sim­ply anoth­er emper­or in a long line span­ning over 2,000 years,” or that Xi Jinping’s anti-cor­rup­tion dri­ve mim­ics a Ming obses­sion.” Defense Sec­re­tary James Mat­tis recent­ly echoed this frame­work, assert­ing that, The Ming Dynasty appears to be their mod­el, albeit in a more mus­cu­lar man­ner, demand­ing oth­er nations become trib­ute states kow­tow­ing to Bei­jing.” This is an expres­sion of a racist notion that Chi­nese lead­ers are — and always have been — inca­pable of the auton­o­my or cre­ativ­i­ty, and can­not help but remain stuck in an anti­quat­ed polit­i­cal cul­ture that has remained fun­da­men­tal­ly unchanged for cen­turies or mil­len­nia. Thus, Chi­na is por­trayed as for­eign not just to the Unit­ed States, but to the mod­ern world as a whole.

The racist ten­den­cy to deny the auton­o­my and agency of Chi­nese peo­ple as indi­vid­u­als also under­mines pro­gres­sive prin­ci­ples of sol­i­dar­i­ty with all poor and work­ing peo­ple and there­by locks many U.S. pro­gres­sives in nation­al­ism. Chi­nese work­ers have been strik­ing in large num­bers, includ­ing in Wal­mart retail stores and in fac­to­ries sup­ply­ing the Wal­mart sup­ply chain. These work­ers are chal­leng­ing the same cor­po­ra­tions as Amer­i­can work­ers, and mil­i­tant labor move­ments in Chi­na and oth­er export-dri­ven economies have the poten­tial to con­tribute a great deal to the strat­e­gy of U.S. pro­gres­sives who feel out-maneu­vered by glob­al­iza­tion. Greater sol­i­dar­i­ty between activist work­ers in the Unit­ed States and in Chi­na could great­ly increase the pow­er of move­ments in both coun­tries. Trag­i­cal­ly, pro­gres­sive lead­ers in the Unit­ed States rarely rec­og­nize Chi­nese work­ers as poten­tial com­rades in a shared strug­gle against glob­al cor­po­rate pow­er, and instead rob Chi­nese work­ers of their agency, objec­ti­fy them as face­less com­pe­ti­tion to U.S. work­ers or dis­re­gard them entirely.

Even lead­ing pro­gres­sives like Bernie Sanders can fall short of full-throat­ed sol­i­dar­i­ty with Chi­nese work­ers. In response to Trump’s deci­sion to impose tar­iffs against Cana­da and the Euro­pean Union, Sanders urged the White House to refo­cus tar­iffs on Chi­na and oth­er low-income coun­tries, say­ing on June 1, We need a trade pol­i­cy that is fair to Amer­i­can work­ers, not just large mul­ti-nation­al cor­po­ra­tions.” This frames anti-Chi­na pro­tec­tion­ism as a way to punch up” against cor­po­rate pow­er. Yet, don’t Chi­nese work­ers also deserve a fair trade pol­i­cy? In a 2015 inter­view with Ezra Klein, Sanders did express­es sym­pa­thy for Chi­nese work­ers and a desire for them to achieve a high­er stan­dard of liv­ing.” Yet, he also described them as com­peti­tors, say­ing, I don’t think decent-pay­ing jobs in this coun­try have got to be lost as com­pa­nies shut down here and move to Chi­na.” Sanders vocal­iz­ing these posi­tions despite, at oth­er times, express­ing prin­ci­ples of inter­na­tion­al­ism: In the same 2015 inter­view, he assert­ed that the Unit­ed States must work more close­ly with Chi­na to com­bat cli­mate change.

Some lead­ing U.S. unions, mean­while, embrace overt­ly pro­tec­tion­ist poli­cies. This spring, Unit­ed Steel­work­ers Pres­i­dent Leo Ger­ard argued in favor of steel tar­iffs, cast­ing Chi­nese work­ers as com­peti­tors against their U.S. coun­ter­parts. Ger­ard cit­ed China’s dan­ger­ous and envi­ron­men­tal­ly tox­ic mills,” as well as the con­struc­tion of new ones, as play­ing a key role in throw­ing tens of thou­sands” of Amer­i­cans out of work. Also this spring, the AFL-CIO released a state­ment titled, Strate­gic Tar­iffs Against Chi­na Are Crit­i­cal Part of Trade Reform to Cre­ate More Jobs and Bet­ter Pay.” The state­ment argues, Tar­iffs aren’t an end goal, but an impor­tant tool to end trade prac­tices that kill Amer­i­can jobs and dri­ve down Amer­i­can pay.”

It is true that the glob­al econ­o­my pits work­ers every­where against each oth­er in zero-sum com­pe­ti­tion for jobs and invest­ment, and locks every­one in a race to the bot­tom in wages and work­ing con­di­tions. The relo­ca­tion of fac­to­ries and dein­dus­tri­al­iza­tion have been part of this dynam­ic, and some of this has tak­en place between the Unit­ed States and Chi­na. But the role of U.S.-China com­pe­ti­tion is exag­ger­at­ed and deeply misunderstood.

As Pun Ngai and Sam Austin write in the Intro­duc­tion to Strik­ing to Sur­vive, a new book on work­er resis­tance in Chi­na to fac­to­ry relocations:

[R]elatively few man­u­fac­tur­ing jobs have moved from the Unit­ed States to Chi­na. The high tide of out­sourc­ing took place in the 1980s, when many man­u­fac­tur­ing jobs moved from cities in the north­ern Unit­ed States to places such as Mex­i­co, Tai­wan, and oth­er parts or the Unit­ed States with weak­er unions and low­er wages. Many oth­er jobs were replaced by automa­tion. If main­land Chi­na stole’ jobs from any­one, it was not from the Unit­ed States but from Mex­i­co and parts of East Asia in the 1990s and 2000s.

Automa­tion is a larg­er fac­tor in man­u­fac­tur­ing job loss­es than relo­ca­tions to all oth­er coun­tries put togeth­er. The U.S. man­u­fac­tur­ing sec­tor is doing well, it’s just pro­duc­ing much more with much few­er work­ers, includ­ing in the steel indus­try. Mean­while, Chi­na has been hit by its own fac­to­ry relo­ca­tions to coun­tries such as Bangladesh, Cam­bo­dia, Laos and Myan­mar. Chi­na also has its own Rust Belt” in the north­east which has suf­fered mas­sive dein­dus­tri­al­iza­tion in steel and coal indus­tries. In oth­er words, dein­dus­tri­al­iza­tion and fac­to­ry relo­ca­tions to poor­er regions is a glob­al eco­nom­ic trend that affects work­ers in all coun­tries. This is a shared prob­lem which demands that we come togeth­er across bor­ders around shared solu­tions. But the era­sure of work­ers in Chi­na and else­where makes this impos­si­ble to see.

The way forward

Pro­gres­sives need to embrace inter­na­tion­al­ism, rather than nation­al­ism. Instead of the main­stream vision of unit­ing the left and right in the Unit­ed States against Chi­na, pro­gres­sive inter­na­tion­al­ists should pro­pose a vision of unit­ing the work­ers of the world against the pow­er of multi­na­tion­al cor­po­ra­tions that are hurt­ing poor and work­ing peo­ple in all coun­tries. It is vital to show a way beyond the impos­si­ble ambi­tion to main­tain U.S. hege­mo­ny forever.

There are many ways to pur­sue these goals. One is to orga­nize between the Unit­ed States and Chi­na against shared cor­po­rate tar­gets — that is, cor­po­ra­tions that are respon­si­ble for exploita­tion and oppres­sion both here and there. There is no short­age of abu­sive cor­po­ra­tions whose sup­ply chains and retail chains are shared between the two coun­tries, includ­ing high-pro­file cor­po­rate tar­gets like Wal­mart, Ama­zon and Apple. Inter­na­tion­al sol­i­dar­i­ty is, in fact, the only way to suc­cess­ful­ly con­front the pow­er of cor­po­ra­tions whose sales, assets and work­forces are most­ly locat­ed in Chi­na and oth­er coun­tries out­side of the Unit­ed States. To try to fight them just with­in the Unit­ed States is like try­ing to defeat a hydra by fight­ing just one of its heads.

Pro­gres­sives can also prop­a­gate sto­ries of pro­gres­sives and work­er activists in Chi­na, ide­al­ly in their own words. This is a way to reveal to West­ern pro­gres­sives that there are coun­ter­parts in Chi­na who are poten­tial com­rades, and to fight back against the racist ten­den­cy to see them as face­less com­pe­ti­tion. There are a num­ber of trans­lat­ed sto­ries and inter­views that give a sense of the spir­it of work­ers and activists in Chi­na: inter­views with Chi­nese work­er activists, the sto­ries col­lect­ed in the books Chi­na on Strike and Strik­ing to Sur­vive, the writ­ings of per­se­cut­ed stu­dent activists like fem­i­nist Yue Xin or the Eight Young Left­ists,” the poet­ry of Fox­conn work­er Xu Lizhi, satir­i­cal works like Marx pays a vis­it to Fox­conn” and more. Pro­gres­sives can do more through both tra­di­tion­al and social media to pop­u­lar­ize such stories.

Coop­er­a­tion with the labor move­ment and pro­gres­sive forces in Chi­na is cur­rent­ly dif­fi­cult. In order to main­tain social sta­bil­i­ty in the face of threats to eco­nom­ic growth, Pres­i­dent Xi has led severe crack­downs on civ­il soci­ety, which espe­cial­ly tar­get inde­pen­dent labor orga­ni­za­tions and groups with con­nec­tions to the Unit­ed States. But as sto­ries of Chi­nese activists show, Xi’s hold on Chi­nese soci­ety is not as total as most west­ern­ers assume. And there are larg­er open­ings in Hong Kong where civ­il soci­ety groups remain much freer than in main­land Chi­na and also retain con­nec­tions with the main­land. Replac­ing antag­o­nis­tic nation­al­ism with a pos­ture of inter­na­tion­al sol­i­dar­i­ty will cre­ate new oppor­tu­ni­ties for pro­gres­sive forces in China.

Pro­gres­sives can also pro­pose and lob­by for pol­i­cy solu­tions that pro­vide alter­na­tives to the exist­ing glob­al econ­o­my, which pres­sures coun­tries to con­front each oth­er in a race to the bot­tom. The solu­tion is rel­a­tive­ly straight­for­ward: glob­al stan­dards that will pro­tect poor and work­ing peo­ple across bor­ders. This includes a glob­al min­i­mum wage that lifts up wages across bor­ders, glob­al stan­dards on cor­po­rate tax­es to stop glob­al tax eva­sion, and bind­ing cli­mate change stan­dards. To help enforce these stan­dards, we can also cre­ate cross-bor­der mech­a­nisms for cor­po­rate account­abil­i­ty, giv­ing Chi­nese work­ers the pow­er to con­front U.S. com­pa­nies for their abus­es over there and giv­ing U.S. work­ers in Chi­nese-owned com­pa­nies the same pow­er. These can be built into exist­ing trade agree­ments, using the pow­er that already exists in those agree­ments and turn­ing it toward pro­gres­sive ends. This will cre­ate a fair­er glob­al econ­o­my, halt race to the bot­tom and reduce com­pe­ti­tion between nation­al economies. This will also increase glob­al demand, by giv­ing Chi­nese and oth­er for­eign work­ers the abil­i­ty to afford the prod­ucts that they can cur­rent­ly sell only in the U.S. con­sumer mar­ket, which will fuel a new and more equi­table era of job creation.

Pro­gres­sives need a for­eign pol­i­cy strat­e­gy that opens up a path to peace­ful and con­struc­tive col­lab­o­ra­tion with a ris­ing Chi­na and accepts the decline of U.S. hege­mo­ny. This is an area where much more research is nec­es­sary. Con­sid­er, for exam­ple, the high­ly con­tentious Belt and Road Ini­tia­tive (BRI), an immense­ly ambi­tious glob­al infra­struc­ture plan that calls for hun­dreds of bil­lions of dol­lars of invest­ment per year in at least 65 coun­tries. Improved glob­al infra­struc­ture is in prin­ci­ple a pro­gres­sive goal, but BRI includes many exploita­tive and oppres­sive prac­tices that are far from pro­gres­sive. There could be a pro­gres­sive approach that involves offer­ing to col­lab­o­rate with Chi­na on BRI while also demand­ing an end to abuses.

Pro­gres­sives must also accept that China’s econ­o­my is like­ly to become dom­i­nant, and that even­tu­al­ly this will include the tech sec­tor that the U.S. rul­ing class is cur­rent­ly so jeal­ous­ly pro­tect­ing. The cur­rent sys­tem of intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty rights is fun­da­men­tal­ly a form of class war that increas­es the pow­er of cor­po­ra­tions to extract prof­its from con­sumers. This is becom­ing increas­ing­ly clear when it comes to drug price goug­ing, but it is true of intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty rights in tech­nol­o­gy more gen­er­al­ly. The pro­gres­sive posi­tion is not to pick fights with for­eign gov­ern­ments over intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty, but rather to pro­mote tech­nol­o­gy trans­fers to poor­er coun­tries, pri­or­i­tiz­ing the well-being of all peo­ple rather than cor­po­rate profits.

Final­ly, pro­gres­sives must direct­ly resist anti-Chi­na racism as it appears in both domes­tic and inter­na­tion­al pol­i­cy, begin­ning by ral­ly­ing pro­gres­sive and lib­er­al forces against prac­tices of racial pro­fil­ing at the FBI and in immi­gra­tion law. Asians must lead this agen­da, and must add it to exist­ing strug­gles around racial jus­tice and jus­tice for immigrants.

The main­stream, bipar­ti­san trend of anti-Chi­na pol­i­tics leads in the wrong direc­tion both domes­ti­cal­ly and abroad. As I have writ­ten else­where, when pro­gres­sives embrace this form of pol­i­tics it puts them on the ide­o­log­i­cal ter­rain of the Right. But pro­gres­sives can­not com­pete with the Right when it comes to nation­al­ism. When pro­gres­sives erase for­eign work­ers and embrace nation­al­ist ide­olo­gies which pit U.S. work­ers against their coun­ter­parts in Chi­na and else­where, they make a strate­gic mis­take by fore­clos­ing on any pos­si­bil­i­ty of tru­ly chal­leng­ing glob­al cor­po­rate pow­er through inter­na­tion­al sol­i­dar­i­ty. To make mat­ters worse, the anti-Chi­na approach will only end up under­min­ing com­rades in Chi­na by fur­ther threat­en­ing Chi­na’s econ­o­my and pro­vok­ing fur­ther crack­downs from the government.

There is a bet­ter path for­ward into a bet­ter future, and the needs of work­ing peo­ple and pro­gres­sives in the Unit­ed States and around the world demand that we take it.

Tobi­ta Chow is the direc­tor of Jus­tice Is Glob­al, a spe­cial project of People’s Action that is build­ing a move­ment to cre­ate a more just and sus­tain­able glob­al econ­o­my and defeat right-wing nation­al­ism around the world. You can fol­low Tobi­ta on Twit­ter at @tobitac.

Subscribe and Save 66%

Less than $1.67 an issue