值得一閱的演講稿。

可以讓您了解美國精英階層，之所以會反中的心理底層。

美國參議員深刻反思：中國改變了資本主義，美國必須將刀刃揮向內部。

最近，美國兩黨成立了一個“中國問題委員會”，這委員會的唯一任務，就是怎麼對付中國，可意外的是，這個委員會開會第一天的主題，討論的不是用什麼方法來對付中國，而是刀口向內，怎麼改變美國，委員會的核心觀點認為：中國成為美國最大的挑戰，不是中國的問題，而是美國的問題，是美國這三十年來糟糕透頂的戰略路線，讓中國成為最大對手，所以現在我們坐在這裡討論怎麼對付中國，核心不在中國，而在美國自身，我們要對付中國的前提是，徹底刀口向內，改變美國自己。

我們一起來聽聽他們到底說了什麼:

(*)發言人，佛羅里達州參議員，盧比奧，他說：“當今世界最大的問題是中美日益激烈的競爭， 這是個歷史性挑戰，美國認識到這個挑戰花了太多時間。”“但我認為當美國聚焦在中美競爭時，我們應該知道最核心的問題，根本不是中國，而是美國自己。”

“核心問題是，美國幾十年來的兩黨共識，這種深入美國經濟和政治，深信全球化會帶來財富與和平的共識，幾乎成了美國的國家信仰。”“美國認為：

當人員、商品、資金在全球自由流動後，就能解決世界所面臨的幾乎所有問題。”“這種深信全球化的觀點，構築了美國的政治體系，構建了美國外交政策的根基。”“你別說，這套觀點在二次大戰後50年裡還挺有用，基於這觀點美國構建了一個二戰後的西方自由市場。”

“像是西歐、日本等國家，二戰後從一片廢墟中繁榮起來，全都仰賴於美國深信的這套自由市場理念。”“這些國家繁榮起來後，反過來會成為美國的重要市場，這也讓美國持續繁榮，這是種良性迴圈。”“而更重要的是，美國通過這種自由貿易的良性迴圈，塑造了這些國家的價值觀，讓這些國家擁有和美國一樣的價值觀，成為美國的堅定盟友。

”“總體來看，二戰後50年，也就是1945-1995這段時間，美國的這套'自由貿易，傳遞價值觀'的咿D體系，是成功的。”“然後冷戰結束了，蘇聯瓦解了，而總統們，我這裡說‘總統們’，因為這是美國兩黨總統的共同問題。”

“我們這些‘總統們’，變得狂妄自大，目中無人，我記得當時流行的說法叫：‘歷史終結論’，美國戰勝了蘇聯，〔資本主義戰勝了共產主義。〕

“未來全世界都將是如同美國這般自由的資本主義國家，經濟自由化必然改變社會主義。”“美國總統們相信，任何國家只要浸泡在資本主義裡，不僅會變得繁榮，而且也會變成美國朋友。”“所以狂妄自大的總統們，開始瘋狂的支持〔全球化〕，因為他們相信〔全球化，就是傳播資本主義〕，而傳播資本主義，美國就將持續繁榮，美國開始在世界簽訂大量的貿易協定，支持組建了大量國際貿易機構，制定各種自由貿易規則。”

“美國瘋狂邀請全世界各個國家參與到全球化來，即便那些國家和美國三觀不合，也沒有和美國相同的長期戰略目標。”“而在美國支持的所有貿易協定裡，沒有哪個比2001年支援中國加入世貿組織WTO，對今天的影響更大了。”

“中國當時是人口第一大國，美國積極擁抱中國，總統們這麼做，不是因為這對美國工人有好處，更不是因為美國能獲得多大好處。”“當時美國支持中國加入世貿的唯一重要理由是，美國相信，資本主義能改變中國。”“蘇聯都被美國打敗了，美國的體系已然稱霸世界，改變中國也易如反掌，中國難道還會比蘇聯強嗎？”

“正是基於這種狂妄的認知，資本主義必然改變中國，美國大力支持中國加入全球化，總統們相信，中國人吃著巨無霸漢堡、喝著可口可樂，就會慢慢的接受美國的價值觀，成為一個真正的美國朋友。”“總統們深信，資本主義能改變中國，可現在怎麼樣了呢？過去整整23年，資本主義沒有改變中國，反而是中國改變了資本主義。”

“我再重複一遍，資本主義沒有改變中國，是中國改變了資本主義。”“

美國輸了，我們輸了，我們勇敢承認吧。”“中國敞開大門，熱烈歡迎美國，中國用廉價的勞動力和製造成本來吸引外資湧入，數百萬美國工作，美國的重要產業，美國的工廠，大舉進入中國。”“美國資金瘋狂進入中國，以獲取超高的回報，可是美國的工人們得到了什麼？”“美國工人們失業了，工廠倒閉了，城鎮荒蕪了，但美國總統們還在那裡信心十足的告訴我們，別擔心，流失的不是什麼好工作，都是底層工作，這些流失的底層位子，會被更好的職位取代。

底層位子，就讓它去中國吧！美國工人會有更好工作，而且你們要往遠處想想，美國把底層工作送給了中國之後，中國人會比以前富有，然後，中國人就會買美國的商品，他們會買美國手機，看美國電影，吃美國食物，他們會在方方面面，深受美國文化的影響。再然後，他們就會從一個社會主義國家，變成資本主義式的美國朋友。這就是當時總統們的幻想。

可是，如今不用我多說，大家也知道，這屁話根本沒有實現啊！

中國製造業，高速發展，中國在方方面面都取得很大成功，中國成為了世界工廠，而世界產業鏈，都根本離不開中國。再看看可悲的美國，我不用說別的，你們打開每年的中美貿易額，這還不清楚嗎？”“2022年，中美貿易總額6926億美元，其中美國買中國商品5388億美元，中國買美國商品1538億美元，逆差達到歷史記錄的3850億美元。”“這不是一年而已，是每一年。

每一年都這樣，你告訴我說，中國人會大買美國貨，然後美國會改變中國嗎？ 恰好相反，這明明是美國人大買中國貨，然後中國改變美國啊。

請問，中美到底是誰改變誰呢？實在太失敗了。

中國的中產階級以歷史性的速度增長，但美國中產階級，完蛋了，這就是此消彼長，資料內容令人觸目驚心，如果你比較美國工人的崗位流失，和中國中產崛起，兩者是發生在同一時間，幅度幾乎相當，〔美國的衰落，成就了中國的繁榮〕，可是，這怪中國嗎？這不怪中國，這全是那群冷戰後狂妄自大的總統們的責任。現在中國富有了，很富有了，但中國人沒用錢來買美國產品，他們用錢買中國製造的產品，中國人對中國貨的支持，要遠大於美國人對美國貨的支持。

有人說不對喔，中國人都買蘋果，都買特斯拉，但是蘋果和特斯拉是美國製造的嗎？

答案是，中國人買的每一部蘋果，每一輛特斯拉，沒有一個是美國製造的，全是中國人自己製造的，美國工人們沒有從中國人買的蘋果或者特斯拉裡，拿到任何一分的好處。

但是，蘋果和特斯拉卻為中國提供了龐大的崗位和強大的供應鏈，你要知道在中國生產的特斯拉，上下游的所有供應鏈，全都是中國自己的，這讓中國現在的電動車製造領先世界。這就是中國的策略，利用龐大市場和低廉成本，吸引美國製造業，幫助中國產業升級，構築中國完整的產業鏈，然後中國再一腳把美國踢開。

現在，你看到一個富有的中國，他們有錢後，開始走向世界，開始輸出中國模式，這對美國模式，構成巨大挑戰。中國走遍世界，告訴其他國家，美國模式不能解決很多問題，中國模式比美國模式好用的多，有效得多。中國可以制定決策後快速行動，集中全力辦一件事，而不像美國這般，一個政策要反覆爭論，反覆扯皮，一條公路中國修一個月，美國修三年。中國告訴第三世界國家，這就是中美的區別，而這對不少第三世界國家，很有吸引力，第三世界國家想要的是快速發展，而不是整天在決策上虛耗時間。

事實上，美國正面臨這一歷史性災難錯誤的嚴重後果，也就是資本主義沒能改變中國，中國卻改變了資本主義。我們每天都在面對被中國改變後的資本主義，不僅在我們身處的國會，也在我們的社會，我們的電視和媒體裡，美國內部已高度分裂，民主黨、共和黨，兩黨爭吵不休，這種爭吵已經不是觀念之爭，而是態度之爭了，我們只針對不同黨派，而不針對不同事，只要是對手黨提出的事，不管什麼事，我們都反對，我們都要想方設法的去破壞對手黨的成績，即便那破壞不會對本黨帶來好處，但我們就是要去破壞。

美國的體系正在高度分裂，同樣分裂的還有美國的上下階層。中美合作三十年，(*)〔美國工人輸的一塌糊塗，可是美國商人卻賺的盆滿缽滿〕，一邊是企業利潤屢創新高，一邊是鐵銹帶成百萬的藍領工人失去工作，失去收入。

曾經富有的美國藍領階層，現在每月領救濟金，曾經充滿活力的美國社區，現在一派蕭條。美國已經成了一個癮君子，我們對中國上癮，每天不抽兩口中國的毒品，美國就會毒癮發作，渾身難受。當然我指的是美國已經對中國的商品上癮，這不僅僅是廉價商品，你知道嗎？大量中國的零副件，已經充斥美國市場，沒有中國零副件，美國製造業寸步難行。中國，更主導著全球供應鏈，從食品到藥品，再到工業產品，所有的一切都離不開中國，疫情時期美國的商品大缺貨，就已經印證了這一點。

美國離不開中國，美國對中國上癮，可是中國是美國最大的競爭對手啊，你怎麼可以對你最大的競爭對手上癮呢？難道未來美國要像一個癮君子一樣，對中國搖尾乞憐，乞求中國再給美國一點毒品嗎？這太可怕了，中美3850億美元的貿易逆差，太可怕了，這意味著美國很脆弱，很容易被中國勒索和脅迫。

當中國掌控世界供應鏈時，反觀美國自己，今天美國的經濟高度集中於兩個領域，打開電視看看吧，所有財經媒體整天只討論這兩個領域。

(*)一個是金融，華爾街，期貨，買空賣空，虛假的金錢遊戲，不製造任何產品。

(*)一個是大型科技公司，蘋果，谷歌，微軟，亞馬遜，特斯拉，這些巨型跨國企業，同樣不製造任何實物產品，就算製造也大多在中國製造。這些企業創造了最大的財富，卻提供著美國工人最少的工作，更可怕的是，這些巨型跨國企業，擁有著比美國政府更多更大的權力。〔在很多情況下，美國政府都要聽命於他們，而這些跨國企業對我們國家，對我們人民，毫無忠湛裳浴？鐕�企業的利益，不是美國國家利益，他們只在乎企業股東的利益，只要能為企業股東牟利，他們會毫不猶豫的犧牲美國國家利益。〕

可是中國呢？你告訴我，哪一個中國的大型企業不是為中國國家利益服務的？有嗎？你告訴我一個？中國有龐大的國企，全都為中國國家利益服務，還有數量繁多的民企，華為、小米、抖音……也全都為中國國家利益服務，差別實在太大了，美國難以集中力量和中國競爭。現在我們該認清了，所謂經濟全球化能讓美國更繁榮，完全是一個幻想。我們更該認清，和蘇聯相比，中國這個對手要強大得多，危險得多，也困難得多。哪怕是鼎盛時期的蘇聯，都不像中國這般對美國威脅這麼大。蘇聯從來不是美國的產業競爭對手，但中國是。

蘇聯從來不是美國的科技競爭對手，但中國是。蘇聯從來無法讓美國成為一個上癮的癮君子，但中國能，美國對中國上癮，中國對美國的經濟有很大制約，對美國的社會有很大影響，那些出賣美國利益的美國跨國企業，更在華盛頓擁有一支免費的遊說大軍。這些免費遊說大軍，都不是中國花錢雇的，而是在和中國合作中能獲得巨大好處，他們都心甘情願的去替中國說話。他們從不關心美國人五年後還有沒有工作，從不關心美國在競爭中會敗給中國，他們只關心他們的錢包，他們的企業財富，他們無償的幫助中國，削弱美國。這套模式有效而持久，讓美國人反對美國政府，讓美國企業反對美國政府，從內部瓦解我們，分裂我們，讓我們自己打自己。

但是，這能怪中國嗎？各位啊！這是我今天演講的核心，這能怪中國嗎？這不怪中國，是美國自己製造了這一系列的系統漏洞和政治溝壑，中國只是看到了我們的漏洞，然後利用。一切根本問題不在中國，而在美國體系本身，美國現在這個政治體系，不是為美國國家利益服務的，而是為美國跨國企業資本家服務的，這才是關鍵。

問題核心，不是中國對我們做了什麼，核心是我們要對自己做什麼？美國想要贏得和中國的競爭，就必須改變如今國家為企業資本服務的本質。我們要管控那些不為美國國家利益服務的企業，我們要改變主導我們經濟政策和政治體系的咿D模式。我天天在國會，天天聽到那些話：噢！你不能這樣對中國，因為這會傷害美國的貿易，噢！你不能那樣對中國，因為這會傷害美國的利益。

拜託，這不是美國的貿易，這是你們跨國企業的貿易，這不是美國的利益，這是你們跨國企業的利益。我受夠了這些，這是一整個美國體系的災難，現在不是1991年，現在不是2000年，我們面對的是一個強大的，而我們卻沾沾自喜的對手。美國真的會贏嗎？以美國現在災難般的國家體系，和中國競爭越久，對美國越不利，和中國拖越久，美國優勢越小。

各位，我會在接下來幾周的國會演講裡，勾畫出一幅清晰的替代藍圖，這比我整天坐在國會爭論要禁止中國這個，禁止中國那個要強得多。請你們記住，我們要做的不是禁止中國的哪個產品，或者打擊中國的哪個產業，我們要做的是改變美國這咿D了30年的全球化災難體系-打擊中國產業、禁售中國產品。這樣是贏不了中國的。但是可以徹底改變三十年來美國自身的災難體系。

但是，我要醜話說在前面，改變美國自身災難體系，絕非易事，因為那些靠著舊模式混的風生水起的人，仍然在美國有著龐大權力，他們會想盡辦法來阻撓我們改變美國，他們會用盡他們的權力來維護這個舊系統。但是我的美國朋友們，我們別無選擇，必須和舊勢力的阻礙者爭鬥到底，因為這場中美競爭的勝敗，將定義全世界整個二十一世紀。

附：原文：（註：未及仔細校對翻譯，供參考）

RUBIO: “CAPITALISM DIDN’T CHANGE CHINA—CHINA CHANGED CAPITALISM”

MAR 2, 2023 | PRESS RELEASES

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) spoke on the Senate floor to discuss the challenges our nation is facing and what we can do to make things right. See below for the full transcript. Watch on YouTube and Rumble.

Mr. President, no issue dominates our attention more these days than our growing rivalry with China, and rightly so. It’s a historic challenge. It’s one that I think we waited way too long to recognize, and now we’re scrambling to make up for that. 

But I think it’s important that we remember that the core and central issue here is not China per se. The core issue here is a decades-old bipartisan consensus that’s entrenched in our economics and in our politics. A consensus that said that economic globalization would deliver wealth and freedom and peace. 

It was almost a religious faith in the power of the free flow of people and money and goods across borders as the answer to virtually every problem that faced the world. And that’s how we built our politics. That’s how we build our foreign policy. 

And you know what? For about 50 years after World War II, it generally worked. The reason why it generally worked is that we didn’t actually have a global market. If you look at the economy that we were engaged in, even through free trade and the like during that period of time, it was primarily a market made up of democratic allies, countries that shared common values and common priorities for the future. 

Even when the outcomes were not always in our benefit, when some industry left to a country in Europe, or during the time that Japan challenged us in some sectors, at least the beneficiary of that outcome was not the Soviet Union or some geopolitical competitor. The beneficiary was another democracy and an ally in our confrontation with communism.

It generally worked during that time because, by and large, the interest of the global market and the interest of our country never got out of balance too far. 

And then the Cold War ended. And our leaders became intoxicated with hubris. I remember the lexicon was that it’s the end of history, and the world will now be flat, and every country is now going to naturally become a free enterprise. 

Democracy and economic liberalization would always result in political freedom. You flood a country with capitalism, and that country will not just get rich, but they’re going to turn into us or some version of one of our democratic allies. 

In pursuit of that gamble, which had no historic precedent, we entered into all kinds of trade deals and treaties and rules and regulations on an international scale. And we invited all kinds of countries that were not democracies, did not share our values, and did not have the same long-term goals for the world as we did. Their long term goals, in fact, were incompatible with ours.

Of all the deals that were made, none has had a greater impact than the decision that was made in the first year of this century to admit China into the World Trade Organization. 

They opened up our economy to the most populous nation on earth, controlled by a communist regime. And they did it, not because anybody argued that it would be good for American workers. They made the argument that eventually it would be, but they weren’t arguing this is going to help us in the short term, this is good for our industries. 

The argument behind doing this with China was we think capitalism will change them. They’re going to eat Big Macs and drink Coca-Cola, and they’re going to literally ingest democracy, and it will transform them. 

They argued that capitalism was going to change China. Now we stand here 23 years later and realize capitalism didn’t change China—China changed capitalism.

They opened up their doors and said come on in. They said we have cheap labor, cheap workers. And millions of American jobs, important industries, and factories flooded into China. They did it with the promise that you can make a lot of money in this huge market very quickly, with huge rates of return, and therefore make more profits for companies. 

We lost jobs, factories closed, and towns were gutted. But the leaders at that time said don’t worry, they’re only taking the bad jobs. Those bad jobs are going to be replaced by good jobs, better jobs. Americans are going to be able to have those good jobs. 

And they said those Chinese workers that took your jobs are going to get richer now, and with that money they’re going to do two things. They’re going to start buying American products, and they are going to demand democracy and freedom. They’re going to change China. 

Well, I don’t think I’m going to spend a lot of time today explaining that that did not work out. That is not how it played out. 

China allowed our companies in, but you know what they did? They forced every one of these companies to partner with a Chinese company, a small one at the time. They forced you to partner with them, and they stole your trade secrets. 

So they invited them in, they learned how to do whatever it is you did, and when they no longer needed you, they kicked you out. Their company took over. And in many cases, they put the company that taught them how to do it or that they stole the secrets from out of business. 

That’s what they did. They used it to build up their own economy, their own companies. The Chinese middle class also grew at a historic rate. But ours collapsed in an almost inverse effect. The numbers are stunning. If you look at the destruction of these American working-class jobs and the rise of the middle class in China, they happen at the same time and on almost the same scale. 

China did get rich. They most certainly got rich, but they didn’t use that money to buy our products. They used that money to buy the products that are made in China. And they didn’t become a democracy either. Now you have a rich Chinese Communist Party that has tightened its grip on the country.

And it’s actually started going around the world trying to export their authoritarian model. 
They literally go around telling countries democracy cannot solve problems. “Our system is so much better at solving problems. We can move quicker, we don’t have to have a town hall meeting before we do everything, we can have strategic 20-year plans, and we can solve your problems.”

And for developing countries around the world, that potentially has some appeal. The fact is that we’re now confronted with the consequences of this historic and catastrophic mistake. And it’s important to understand what some of these are and they’ll be familiar to you because we see them every day. They play out not just on the floor of the Senate. They play out in our society and our politics on television. 

First of all, we’re a nation that’s bitterly divided. It’s easy and lazy to say we’re Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives. The biggest divisions are not even ideological per se. They seem to be attitudinal. 

Largely, they seem to be along the lines of an affluent class of people that work in jobs and careers and in industries and live in places that have benefited from this rearrangement of the global economy. They do jobs that pay well and that work in a system like this. 

They are divided against the millions of working people who were left behind by all these changes and live in places that are literally hollowed out, once-vibrant communities that have been gutted. 

By the way, remember when they would say don’t worry, those people will move to somewhere else in the country for those new jobs? They didn’t move, because people don’t like to leave their community. They don’t like to leave their extended family. They don’t like to leave all the things they’ve ever known and supported them. That didn’t work that way.

We are addicted to cheap exports from China. And we are dependent on Chinese supply chains for everything from food to medicine to advanced technology. We just had a pandemic that reminded us of this. And what does that mean—these long supply chains dependent on a geopolitical competitor? It means we’re vulnerable. Vulnerable to blackmail, vulnerable to coercion. 

You know what else it left us with? An economy that is highly concentrated and fragile. Our economy is primarily based today on two sectors. What’s all the news about? Turn on the financial networks. You’ll see what all the discussion is about. Primarily two sectors—finance, meaning people that take your money and invest it somewhere else—and Big Tech. 

And those two industries that are now the pillar of our economy are controlled by just a small number of giant multinational corporations, the same ones that, by the way, outsourced our jobs. These multinational corporations, in many cases, have more power than the government. And they have no loyalty to our people or to our country. Their interest is not the national interest, because they’re multinationals. In fact, they’re owned by shareholders and investment funds from all over the world. 

This idea that globalizing our economy would prevent great power competition between nations was always a delusion. And I think the people of Hong Kong, Taiwan and Ukraine can tell you that this idea that free trade always and automatically leads to peace isn’t true either. 

You know, none of us have ever lived in a world where America was not the most powerful nation on earth. I was born into and grew up in a world where two superpowers faced off in this long and dangerous Cold War between communism and freedom, between the free world and people who lived enslaved behind the iron curtain. 

And then I came of age, and suddenly I watched the Berlin Wall fall, and I saw the Soviet Union collapse. Let me tell you, if you had told me 10 years earlier that the Soviet Union is going to vanish off the face of the earth, I wouldn’t have believed it. It was a time truly historic and unprecedented. 

But now, three decades later, we find ourselves once again in a rivalry with another great power, and this rivalry is far more dangerous. Our rival is far more sophisticated than the Soviet Union ever was. 

The Soviet Union was never an industrial competitor. The Soviet Union was never a technological competitor. The Soviet Union was a geopolitical and a military competitor. But the near-peer rival in China that we have now? They have leverage over our economy. They have influence over our society. They have an army of unpaid lobbyists here in Washington. 

These are the companies and the individuals that are benefiting from doing business in China. And they don’t care if five years from now they won’t even be able to work there anymore. They’re making so much money off their investments, their factories, and their engagement there now that they lobby here for free on China’s behalf. 

This is a rival that has perfected the tactic of using our own media, our own universities, our own investment funds, our own corporations against us. They’ve used them against us every day. 

But this is not the story of what China has done to us. China saw a system that we created, they took advantage of its benefits, and they didn’t live up to its obligations. You know why? Because China was trying to build their country. They were making decisions that were in China’s national interest, not in the interest of the global economy or some fantasy about how if two nations are in business, and there’s a McDonald’s in both countries, they’ll never go to war. 

This is not the story of what China’s done to us. This is the story of what we’ve done to ourselves. Because we’ve allowed the system of globalization to drive our economic policies and our politics. 

And it remains entrenched. Even now, people who agree that we have to do something about this will tell you, ‘We can’t do that, because it will hurt exports. They’ll put a tariff on some industry. China will kick us off.’ 

None of this is going to matter in 5 or 6 years. They won’t need to tariff farm goods from the United States. They’ll own the farm. They’re already buying up farmland. You don’t have to worry about the investment funds that won’t be able to make a return on their investment. In five years, they won’t need their money anymore. 

The system of globalization was a disaster, and the result of the system was not global peace and global prosperity. The result was not the world without walls, in which we were all part of one big happy human family. 

The reality is people live in nations, and nations have interests. And, by and large, for almost all of human history, nations have acted in their own interests. Now we see what happens when one nation does that and another does not. 

The result has been the rise of China and big business, the two big winners in all of this—the consolidation of corporate power in the hands of a handful of companies in key industries, and the rapid and historic rise of China at our expense. 

China is a populous country. They’re always going to be a superpower. They were always going to be one. But they did it faster because they did it at our expense. They didn’t create these jobs. They moved them. They didn’t create these industries. They took them. 

We buy solar panels from China. Who invented solar panels? We did. They lead the world now in battery production for these electric vehicles. We invented it. I can go on and on. They’re building more coal-fired plants than any country on earth. Today, China has more surplus refining capacity for oil than any nation on the planet. 

This era has to end now. It’s not about just taking on China. It is about changing the way we think. It’s not 2000 anymore. It’s not 1999 anymore. This is a different world. 

In a series of speeches over the next few weeks, I’m going to attempt to outline a coherent alternative moving forward, in the hope that we don’t just sit around here all day trying to outdo each other about who’s going to ban this and who’s going to block that going to China. 

This is about a lot more than just banning this and stopping that. It is about a coherent approach to a difficult and historic challenge. And look, it’s a complicated one, and complicated problems rarely have ever have simple solutions. 

But the simplest way I can describe how I think we should move forward is we need to fundamentally realign the assumptions and the ideas behind our economic and foreign policies. We need a new system of global economics where we enter into global trade agreements, not with the goal of doing what’s good for the global economy, but with the goal of doing what’s good for us. 

If a trade deal creates American jobs or strengthens a key American industry, we do that deal. If it undermines us, we don’t do the deal just because it would be good for the global economy or because in the free market lab experiment, it’s the right thing to do.

We don’t live in a lab. We’re human beings, flesh and blood, who live in the real world. In economic theory, when a factory leaves and a job is lost, it’s just a number on a spreadsheet. In real life, when a factory leaves and a job is lost, a dad loses his job. A single mom loses the ability to support her family. A community is gutted. 

We’ll need to enter into global trade agreements. We’re not talking about isolationism here. But the criteria for every agreement needs to be, is it good for our industries and workers or is it bad? 

It sounds pretty simplistic. I don’t know how anyone could disagree that we should not enter into trade agreements that are bad for American workers and bad for key industries. 

We also, by the way, need to enter into foreign policy alliances that reward our allies and strengthen those who share our values and our principles. If we can’t make something here, then we should strengthen the ability of an ally to be the source of our supplies. 

But I will tell you this at the outset—it will not be easy. Because those who have prospered and flourished under the status quo—they still have a lot of power, and they will use it to protect that status quo. But we have no choice but to change direction. Because our success or our failure is going to define the 21st century.