The Economist is a strong supporter of liberal democracy, so it is quite properly critical of Chinese saber-rattling and human rights violations. On the other hand, it was founded to lobby for free trade, so it tends to minimize the Chinese challenge when it talks about American protectionism.
In keeping with this trend, the latest issue of the magazine did its best to convince Americans that we are “riding high,” in spite of all of the dissatisfaction with our economy. The gist of the argument was that American GDP has grown much faster than GDP in Europe and Japan over the last 30 years, and that the American economy still represents roughly the same percentage of world GDP even with the rise of China. The underlying message is that life in America is good with globalization, so we shouldn’t mess with a good thing, even if it means enabling the Chinese, as well.
There are two problems with this analysis. The first, of course, is that Europe and Japan don’t present a problem for us, but China does, so it isn’t really very reassuring to tell us that we’re thriving compared to the UK, France, and Italy. Second, comparing GDP numbers–at least, if you are using them as a measure of national well-being–is somewhat misleading, because health care costs in America are far higher than they are in Europe. This is a source of great anxiety, not comfort, to many Americans, but it actually beefs up our GDP, and makes us look better than the Europeans, who have no such anxieties.
You can certainly make a case that protectionism directed at the Chinese should be limited to high-tech products with a clear relationship to national security, and that protectionism focused on Europe and Japan shouldn’t exist at all. I would agree with that. But arguing that we should limit protectionism because we are doing better than our friends with limited government and free trade completely misses the point.