Some things in life are easily predictable. For example, as sure as day follows night, it was easy to predict that China would emerge as the foreign bogeyman as Senators Clinton and Obama battled for primary votes from blue collar workers in Ohio. And that’s exactly what happened.

Sen. Obama has been traveling through the Buckeye State peppering his stump speeches with references to factory workers who see their equipment “suddenly unbolted and shipped off to China.” Sen. Clinton, in equally vivid terms, paints a similar picture: “Today, China’s steel comes here and our jobs go there,” she tells her audiences. (Wall Street Journal, February 28, “ U.S. candidates ramp up rhetoric against China”)

Both candidates have been hammering China for exporting lead painted toys and contaminated pet food to the United States, which is a fair point, although banning all toys from China, as Sen. Obama once suggested, is naïve since China makes about 80 percent of the world’s toys.

Both candidates also accuse China of keeping the value of the yuan low to maintain competitiveness, and have co-sponsored a Senate bill that would establish guidelines to determine if countries such as China are manipulating their currency. In Sen. Clinton’s words, “The policies of George W. Bush have allowed the Chinese government to become our banker…We play by the rules and they manipulate their currency,” as if the millions of Americans who shop at Wal Mart and buy Chinese-made products, and the legions of investors the world over anxious to invest in the fast-growing Chinese economy, have had nothing at all to do with any of this.

While the pat answer given by politicians for the reason why the U.S. runs such a large trade deficit with China is convenient because it shifts the blame elsewhere, large, sophisticated economies like those of China and the United States are complicated with many interdependent variables. If you change one variable, how do all of the others change? If China’s currency appreciates, its labor costs will be more expensive in terms of world markets. But, with a more valuable currency, what China pays for its raw materials would theoretically be less. In a case where the cost of a product is 50 percent material and 50 percent labor, you could argue that the net effect of the currency fluctuation would be zero. Since the bulk of China’s exports to date have been lower-value-added products, the raw material component is high. In a period when raw material prices are increasing substantially, a more valuable yuan might only enhance China’s competitiveness versus their U.S. counterparts—not the outcome politicians want.

Apart from theory, the numbers suggest that a more valuable yuan may not be the silver bullet for trade that it is thought to be. In the 1980s, Japan was in the same place as China is today. Exports to the U.S. were increasing, Japan’s trade surplus with the U.S. was growing, and politicians were screaming about the currency. From 1985 to 1988, the number of yen that could be bought with one U.S. dollar dropped from 250 to 121 in three short years, a 50 percent appreciation against the U.S. dollar. Yet, exports from Japan to the U.S. increased from $69 billion to $90 billion during that period. The yen continued to appreciate over the next 12 years, with the exchange rate falling to 100 yen to the dollar by 2000. Yet, exports continued to rise and reached $146 billion by the end of the last century.

Experience so far with China is following a similar pattern. China dropped the dollar peg in July 2005 and began allowing the yuan to float within a narrow band. Since then, the yuan has appreciated by about 15 percent against the dollar, with the exchange rate (yuan to the dollar) dropping from 8.3 then to less than 7.2 now. What have China’s exports to the US done since then? They have increased by over 40 percent from $163 billion in 2005 to $233 billion last year. In both the case of Japan and China, American imports haven’t decreased when the currencies of its major suppliers have appreciated. American consumers have just ended up paying more for the goods they purchased—not a good deal for Americans already worried about rising inflation and a recession.

Election rhetoric and politicking aside, the danger the U.S. runs in this presidential campaign is letting the nationalism genie out of the bottle. Once out, it is difficult to get back in. A Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll in December showed that 58 percent of Americans surveyed said that globalization was bad for the country, while 28 percent believe it has been beneficial. A decade ago, 48 percent said globalization was harmful while 42 percent supported it.

When Americans think about globalization today, China is at the top of the list. “Why are the Chinese buying all of our oil?” I was asked on one of my recent trips to my farm in New Jersey. Americans already know far too little about China, and are quick to blame the country for everything from $3 per gallon gasoline to factory closings. At a time when China’s role in the global economy is getting larger, not smaller, education and intelligent debate is needed. This is not the time for responsible politicians to be feeding America’s fears.