A quick search of the four major convention speeches – those of Obama, Biden, McCain and Palin – reveals the following:

    The word "China" was mentioned once in the Obama speech and once in the Biden speech; it was not mentioned at all in the McCain and Palin speeches.

    Obama referred to China as the place where jobs go when they leave the US.   Biden mentions it in relation to a group of changes to the international order:

For the last seven years, this [Bush] administration has failed to face the
biggest forces shaping this century: the emergence of Russia, China and
India as great powers; the spread of lethal weapons; the shortage of
secure supplies of energy, food and water; the challenge of climate
change; and the resurgence of fundamentalism in Afghanistan and
Pakistan, the real central front against terrorism.

    We should probably not make too much of  this, but the Obama mention suggests a certain economic anxiety, and perhaps nationalism.  Of course, there is not much an economic nationalist can do in these days of globalization.  And I imagine that Obama is perfectly aware of the interdependencies that link the American and Chinese economies: we buy their exports, they hold our debt (to put it in the simplest terms).  There is little real possibility that old fashioned protectionist policies can work.

    Biden's comment could be taken as framing China as a threat.  But it is not made out to be a uniquely large or dangerous threat; just one of a number of new global circumstances that must be taken into consideration when formulating US interests.  It is lumped in with Russia, which is emerging in US nationalist discourse as something of a threat, and India, which is not really considered a threat.  In short, I would not take this one mention in Biden's speech as signaling a adversarial stance toward China.  (Much more worrisome are the neocons, who hover in Republican circles, who want very much to ramp up the "China threat").

   What is more telling is the overall absence of China in all of these speeches.  What does that mean in terms of US politics?

    On the face of it, it would seem to suggest that China is not very important to the American electorate. 

    On the Republican side, China is not important because McCain has chosen an identity politics election strategy.  He is building up his image as a war hero and potential "reformer" in the most general symbolic manner.  It's all about image and posturing and "branding".  Specific statements on policy issues have been, and I suspect will continue to be, avoided.  One of his campaign strategists went so far to say:  "This election is not about issues."  McCain is banking on people voting not based on careful consideration of policy alternatives, but, rather, on their unsullied emotions.

    Palin's avoidance of China, it must be said, is due to her simple ignorance.  She knows virtually nothing about it, save, perhaps, its role as a global oil importer.

     On the Democratic side, the absence of China suggests the relative unimportance of foreign policy generally in presidential elections.  Especially when economic times are difficult, voters are more attuned to pocketbook issues: unemployment, health care, education, etc.  Even when times are relatively good, Americans tend to be rather parochial.  Last year, only about 27% of Americans had passports; thus, more than two-thirds of the population has not traveled internationally.  The perspective of most Americans is local and national; and their interests are likely defined on those levels. These days, when Americans do think internationally, the Iraq war looms very large. The Olympics brought a fresh image of China into many American homes but, for the most part, the American perception of China is vague.  It can appear threatening at times, when stories or human rights abuses and authoritarianism circulate in the media; and it can look friendly, as with Kung Fu Panda.  Generally, however, it is not something that voters are very interested in.  The Obama stragey suggests this because he is trying to articulate a broadly popular platform, to describe the most important things he will do if elected president, and China does not figure prominently in that plan.

    I think all of this is a mistake.  China is obviously of very great importance to the future of the US, economiclly, strategically, politically and culturally.  China is changing the US in all sorts of ways, and the US is changing China, and we need to understand that process to create methods of peaceful mutual accomodation.  Even though most Americans may not think about it, the candidates, who should know its importance, must take the time to illustrate China's significance and discuss how the Sino-US relationship will evolve under their leadership. It is more than a shame – it is a failing – that political shortsightedness has distracted the candidate's attention away from China.  This, I trust, will be partially remedied when they debate foreign policy issues.  But more, much more, needs to be done.