Side-by-side analysis of what each approach would mean for trade, Taiwan, technology competition, military posture, human rights, and whether the US and China can cooperate on existential challenges.
We're a policy platform with 50 researched positions on every major issue. This page compares China approaches — but there's much more to explore.
The US-China relationship is the most consequential bilateral relationship of the 21st century. China has the world's second-largest economy ($17.7 trillion), the largest military by personnel, the fastest-growing technology sector, and nuclear weapons. It is simultaneously America's largest trading partner ($700+ billion in annual trade) and its most significant strategic competitor. How the US manages this relationship will shape the global order for decades.
The challenge is that China is not one thing. It is a trade partner whose economic growth has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty and lowered costs for American consumers. It is a strategic competitor that is building military capabilities to challenge US dominance in the Indo-Pacific. It is an authoritarian state that is committing genocide against Uyghurs and crushing democracy in Hong Kong. And it is an essential partner on climate change, which threatens both countries regardless of their strategic rivalry. Any serious China policy must address all four dimensions.
Democrats favor "strategic competition" with guardrails and cooperation where possible. Republicans favor a harder confrontational line with broad economic decoupling. The Common Good Party proposes a nuanced framework: compete where interests diverge, cooperate where they align, and maintain clear guardrails to prevent competition from becoming conflict.
How the three approaches stack up on China policy.
| Issue | Democrats | Republicans | Common Good |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trade approach | Targeted restrictions, worker-centered trade | Broad tariffs, economic decoupling | Strategic de-risking, targeted tariffs, consumer protection |
| Taiwan | Strategic ambiguity, strengthen defense | Stronger commitments, arm Taiwan | Maintain ambiguity, deter through strength, CHIPS investment |
| Technology | Targeted export controls, invest in R&D | Broad restrictions, ban Chinese apps | Targeted controls + massive domestic investment |
| Military | Maintain Indo-Pacific presence, alliances | Increase military spending, confront | Strengthen deterrence, alliance network, avoid provocation |
| Climate cooperation | Maintain cooperation channels | Competition first, climate secondary | Essential — climate channels regardless of tensions |
| Human rights | Targeted sanctions, diplomatic pressure | Strong rhetoric, sanctions, confrontation | Sanctions on officials, forced labor import bans, consistent |
| Supply chains | Diversify critical supply chains | Bring manufacturing home | Critical sector reshoring, allied-nation diversification |
| Tariffs | Maintained Trump tariffs, added some | Broad tariffs, 60%+ proposed | Strategic only — broad tariffs tax American consumers |
| Diplomacy | Engagement with competition | Strength-based, minimal engagement | Compete, cooperate, and communicate — all three |
| Economic competition | Invest at home, compete globally | Restrict China, protect American industry | Outcompete through investment, not just restrict |
Sources: Congressional Research Service, USTR, Department of Defense, party platform documents. See the compact comparison view for a quick summary.
Democrats favor "strategic competition" — competing with China on technology and military capabilities while maintaining cooperation on climate, global health, and nonproliferation. Key policies include the CHIPS and Science Act (investing in domestic semiconductor production), targeted export controls on advanced AI chips, maintaining Taiwan's defense through strategic ambiguity, building alliances in the Indo-Pacific (AUKUS, Quad), and keeping diplomatic channels open. Democrats have largely maintained the Trump-era tariffs while adding targeted restrictions on technology and investment.
The "compete and cooperate" framework correctly recognizes that the US-China relationship cannot be reduced to a single dimension. The CHIPS Act is a generational investment in American technology leadership. Building alliance networks in the Indo-Pacific — rather than confronting China alone — creates collective leverage. Maintaining diplomatic communication reduces the risk of accidental escalation. And recognizing that climate cooperation is essential regardless of strategic competition demonstrates strategic maturity.
Democrats have been slow to articulate what "winning" the technology competition looks like beyond restricting Chinese access. Maintaining Trump-era tariffs while criticizing them is intellectually inconsistent. The party has not developed a comprehensive strategy for reducing critical supply chain dependence beyond semiconductors — pharmaceuticals, rare earths, and critical minerals remain vulnerable. And while climate cooperation is important, it should not be used as justification for softening positions on human rights or military deterrence.
For more on the strategic context, see the full China explainer.
Republicans generally favor a harder confrontational approach: broad tariffs (some proposals exceed 60%), comprehensive economic decoupling, banning Chinese-owned apps (TikTok), stronger Taiwan commitments, increased military spending focused on the Indo-Pacific, and treating China as a primary adversary. Some Republicans support full economic separation; others favor targeted restrictions. The party is more unified on confrontation than on the specifics of what replaces Chinese trade and investment.
Republicans correctly identify the seriousness of the China challenge and the need for strength. China's military buildup, intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, and unfair trade practices are real problems that require robust responses. The emphasis on Taiwan's defense reflects the island's critical strategic importance. And reducing dependency on Chinese supply chains for critical goods is strategically necessary. The instinct to take the threat seriously is correct.
Broad tariffs of 60%+ would function as a massive tax on American consumers — raising prices on everything from electronics to clothing. Full economic decoupling from a deeply integrated $17 trillion economy would crash both economies and harm American businesses that depend on Chinese markets and supply chains. Treating China exclusively as an adversary eliminates cooperation on climate change, which is an existential threat regardless of the geopolitical relationship. And the confrontational rhetoric, without a strategy for managing escalation, risks stumbling into a conflict that neither side wants.
The Republican approach also lacks a positive economic vision beyond "restrict China." If the US does not invest in its own research, education, and innovation, restricting Chinese technology access is a temporary measure that delays rather than prevents Chinese advancement. The Cold War was won through investment — in science, education, infrastructure, and allies — not through isolation alone.
For more on trade impacts, see our China explainer.
The Common Good Party's China framework is built on three pillars: compete, cooperate, and communicate. Compete: invest massively in American research, innovation, education, and infrastructure; maintain targeted export controls on military-adjacent technologies; build technology alliances with democratic partners; reshore critical supply chains. Cooperate: maintain climate cooperation channels; coordinate on pandemic preparedness and nonproliferation; engage on economic governance. Communicate: keep military-to-military channels open; maintain diplomatic engagement; establish crisis management protocols. On Taiwan: maintain strategic ambiguity while strengthening deterrence. On tariffs: strategic and targeted, not broad. On human rights: consistent enforcement of sanctions and import bans.
Unlike the Democratic approach, we prioritize domestic investment over restriction — outcompeting China rather than just limiting it. Unlike the Republican approach, we don't pretend that a $17 trillion economy can be walled off without catastrophic consequences for American consumers and businesses. Our framework treats China as what it is — a complex relationship that requires sophisticated management, not bumper sticker solutions. Competing and cooperating simultaneously is not contradiction; it's realism. Every major power in history has had to manage relationships that involve both rivalry and interdependence.
The Cold War analogy — which drives both parties' thinking — is misleading. The US and Soviet Union had virtually no economic interdependence. The US and China have $700+ billion in annual trade, millions of connected supply chains, and shared exposure to climate change. A new Cold War framework applied to an interdependent relationship would be unprecedented and potentially catastrophic. The countries that have managed the China relationship most effectively — Australia, Japan, South Korea — compete where they must, cooperate where they can, and maintain communications always. This is the model the US should follow.
China policy affects your wallet, your job, and your security. Here's what the CGP approach means in practice.
Want to explore how the full Common Good platform addresses global competition? See our policies on trade, defense, and AI.
Explore the Full PlatformCommon questions about China policy.
Have a question not answered here? Read the full China explainer or visit our site-wide FAQ.
Dive deeper into China policy.
Getting China right requires sophistication, not slogans. Read the full plan and see which approach protects American interests while managing the world's most consequential relationship.
Paid for by The Common Good Party (thecommongoodparty.com) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.