Japan Bashing on the Campaign Trail

By WALTER SHAPIRO

Twelve years ago -- back in those innocent days when candidate Ronald Reagan was pledging to balance the budget by cutting taxes, and first-time presidential contender George Bush was crowing that he was "up for the '80s" -- former Treasury Secretary John Connally embarked on a bold strategy in his quest for the G.O.P. nomination. In place of the Soviet Union and the Ayatullah's Iran, Connally concocted an entirely different American enemy: a small and peaceable island nation called Japan. Connally blustered that unless the Japanese practiced fair trade, "they'd better be prepared to sit on the docks of Yokohama in their Toyotas watching their Sony sets, because they aren't going to ship them here." His reward for being a visionary: Connally won precisely one delegate.

Fast-forward to the 1992 campaign and suddenly almost the entire field of challengers -- from Pat Buchanan on the Republican right to Senator Tom Harkin on the Democratic left -- is singing out of the old Connally hymnbook. An artfully contrived TV spot depicts Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey guarding a hockey net while warning the Japanese that "if we can't sell in their market, they can't sell in ours." Harkin vows to send a similarly shrill message to Tokyo: "We're going to reduce our trade deficit with you, Japan, down to zero in five years. Two ways you can do it: buy more or sell us less." Even soft- spoken Democrat Paul Tsongas cracks, "The cold war is over, and Japan won." And if Buchanan puts "America First," guess what country is last?

Judging from tough-guy rhetoric alone, it might appear that America is spoiling for a fight and, with the Soviet Union on the dustheap of history, Japan is the only serious adversary around. But the spate of Japan baiting mostly follows Teddy Roosevelt's maxim in reverse: loud talk and little stick. No presidential contender is reckless enough to portray Japan as the Evil Economy. America's congenital optimism may be cowering in the corner, but the candidates -- and most voters -- recognize that the roots of the nation's problems lie within the 50 states. Still, in the sound-bite derby for the White House, Japan's affluence and economic nationalism make tempting targets. Japan owes its current prominence to, along with the recession, the President's sorrowful swoon at the Sparkplug Summit in Tokyo. Never before has the nation's Globe-Trotter in Chief seemed so woefully ill prepared on foreign soil. Bush was unable to articulate a coherent rationale, other than pity, for why Japan should liberalize its economic system to reduce its trade surplus with the U.S. With a carping chorus of car executives and a patronizing lecture from Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa, the Bush visit became the free- trade version of Jerry Ford's WIN (for Whip Inflation Now) buttons.

Any presidential pratfall automatically becomes a big issue, especially when six candidates in the two parties are gunning for the job. Democratic trade moderates could suddenly sound tough by attacking Bush's performance in Japan without embracing strident protectionism. Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton needles the President: "When the Japanese Prime Minister said that he felt sympathy for the U.S., it made me sick. If I'd been there with him, I'd have thrown up too."

For the long out-of-power Democrats, the trade issue with Japan offers a rare opportunity to define their vision for a new global order. Bush's sense of the hierarchy of nations is still shaped by the habits of the cold war -- otherwise why did he wait three years to make a state visit to Japan? In contrast, the Democratic contenders primarily view the world through the prism of economics, and here Japan far outranks Boris Yeltsin's Russia.

But the Democrats appear ambivalent in their attitudes toward the world's other economic superpower. Since three of the five Democrats have been state Governors (Clinton, Kerrey of Nebraska and Jerry Brown of California), they tend to welcome Japanese investment in America (jobs) even as they deplore Japanese trading practices (lost jobs). No Democratic candidate would qualify as a Japan expert, but all, aside from Tsongas, have visited the country. In fact Harkin lived in Japan for 18 months as a naval aviator during the 1960s, and Brown made pilgrimages both as Governor and, more recently, as an acolyte in a Zen retreat in Kamakura.

If Japan provides the Democrats with a major foreign policy opportunity, it also symbolizes the dangers of overpromising. Economic nationalism is deeply embedded in the fabric of Japanese culture, and it may be naive to believe that the long-standing trade imbalance can be wiped off the books in a single presidential term. No Democrat -- or Bush either -- seems prepared to confront the ultimate what-if question: What if America's trade deficit with Japan is a permanent condition and cannot be eliminated through pressure to open up Japanese markets or short-term investments in domestic competitiveness? The Democrats -- aside from Brown, who rarely mentions Japan in his different- drummer campaign -- fit on a neat grid from hawk to dove in their strategies for meeting the Japanese challenge:

Harkin the Hawk: veering close to unabashed protectionism, he demands that the Japanese reduce their trade surplus by 20% a year -- or else. The threat would be akin to a Fortress America ban on Japanese imports, a drastic remedy with scant appeal to voters who freely choose to drive Japanese cars.

Kerrey the Weathervane: in his TV ads and rhetoric he often sounds like a Harkin echo. But then in interviews he veers the other way, saying, "I don't think we ought to be protectionist. I think we need to lead in a free-trade fashion." His glib approach rests on the faith that Japan will respond to firm U.S. pressure and -- presto -- the trade deficit will vanish. "I don't mean to dictate to Japan what they do internally," he insists, before adding, somewhat contradictorily, that they "have to give us access to their marketplace."

Clinton the Conciliator: with his emphasis on rebuilding America from within, he attributes only 25% of the trade problem to Japan's structural barriers to U.S. imports. He stresses the primacy of U.S. ties with Japan, saying, "It's like any other important relationship in life. It can't be dealt with intermittently." But Clinton can be almost as evasive as Kerrey when it comes to the specifics of how to pry open Japanese markets. As he puts it, "We'll play by their rules if they won't play by ours and take appropriate action."

Tsongas the Dove: his free-trade philosophy is buttressed by a subtle grasp of the Japanese psyche. "We need to build better products and compete better," he explains. "Then we'll be in a position to negotiate. Now we're sitting across the table from people who look at us with disdain." Threats are not his style, but he points out that what the Japanese "fear most is a U.S. consumer backlash."

The debate over economic relations with Japan represents the first campaign issue of post-cold war politics. Its visibility in the early days of the race is a healthy sign that America is finally facing the future. What a far cry from just four years ago, when the word Japan was never uttered during the two debates between Bush and Michael Dukakis.

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

CREDIT: TIME Graphics by Nigel Holmes

TIME/CNN POLL

From telephone polls of 500 Japanese adults, taken on Jan 28-29 by Infoplan/ Yankelovich International, and of 1,000 American adults, taken on Jan. 30 by Yankelovich Clancy Shulman. Sampling errors are plus or minus 4.5% and 3% respectively. "Not sures" omitted.

CAPTION: THE AMERICAN VIEW

THE JAPANESE VIEW

Which country will be the strongest economic power 10 years from now?

With reporting by Sam Allis/Boston, Jon D. Hull/Manchester ( and Michael Riley/Little Rock