Contributor: Democrats can become the party of business

By Kurt BardellaGuest contributor 

Oct. 4, 2026 3:01 AM PT

For half a century, Republicans have worn the “party of business” label like a permanent badge — tax cuts, deregulation, tough trade talk — while Democrats have too often ceded the ground, treating economic strength as someone else’s brand to react to rather than a story to tell.

A new survey commissioned by the nonpartisan U.S.-Asia Fair Market Alliance hands Democrats a rare gift: hard data showing there is a genuine, winnable opening on economic fairness, and it maps precisely onto the values Democrats already claim.

The numbers are hard to argue with.

A poll of 1,000 nationally representative voters and 318 D.C.-area policy influencers found that 88% of the public and 86% of policy influencers believe American companies deserve fair, reciprocal treatment when doing business abroad. Seventy percent of the small- and medium-size-business owners surveyed said unfair treatment overseas could meaningfully damage their bottom line.

Most tellingly for anyone thinking about the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential primaries: 78% of voters said they would be more likely to support a policymaker who works to ensure U.S. companies are treated fairly in foreign markets — and 76% said Washington should push back just as hard even when the offending country is a close American ally.

That last finding matters enormously.

This isn’t nationalist grievance politics. It’s a demand for consistency and due process — the idea that a small manufacturer in Ohio or a software company in North Carolina shouldn’t face arbitrary data-localization mandates, selective enforcement or shifting rules simply because they’re American. That is a fairness argument, not a tariff-and-tribalism argument. And fairness is Democratic home turf.

Here is the opening: Republicans have held the “pro-business” mantle for decades without much to show for it on this specific problem. Their instinct has been either blanket deregulation that does nothing to protect American exporters from discriminatory treatment overseas, or blunt, across-the-board tariffs that raise costs for the same small businesses they claim to champion. Neither approach distinguishes between a fair playing field and a rigged one. Neither offers the targeted, accountable response the data show voters actually want.

Democrats already have the muscle memory for this fight. It’s the same instinct that drives support for antitrust enforcement against dominant corporations, protections for workers against exploitative employers and consumer safeguards against predatory practices. The through-line in all of it is the same: Don’t let the powerful write the rules to their own advantage while everyone else absorbs the cost. Turning that instinct outward — toward foreign regulators who selectively target American firms — isn’t a departure from Democratic values. It’s a natural extension of them.

And it’s a concrete, sellable policy agenda, not an abstraction.

Democrats can call for real enforcement teeth through the U.S. Trade Representative and the Commerce Department, faster interagency response when American exporters report discriminatory treatment, and export-promotion support specifically for the small and mid-size businesses that the survey shows are most exposed. That’s a message with a policy behind it — something voters can picture actually helping the exporter down the street, not just a talking point about who loves capitalism more.

The political logic is just as compelling as the policy logic. Because the survey shows this issue doesn’t split cleanly along party lines in the electorate — both Democrats and Republicans want their government to act — the party that claims it first, credibly and with specifics, is the party that owns it going forward. Right now, that mantle is sitting unclaimed in the middle of the field.

Democrats have spent years being told they’re weaker on economic issues while Republicans get the credit without the results. Fair treatment for American companies abroad is a rare case where the values, the data and the political incentives all point the same direction. The only question is which party picks it up first.

Kurt Bardella was an advisor for the Democratic National Committee and for Republicans on the House Oversight Committee (2009-2013). X: @KurtBardella Instagram: @KurtTakes

Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Viewpoint This article generally aligns with a Center Left point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the pieceThe column argues Democrats can challenge Republicans’ longstanding “pro-business” image by advocating fair, reciprocal treatment for U.S. companies operating abroad. It cites polling in which large majorities supported fair treatment and favored firm responses to unfair restrictions, including when imposed by allies; the poll release reports similarly strong support across voters and policy influencers.[4]Rather than treating the issue as a case for blanket deregulation or across-the-board tariffs, the article frames it as an extension of Democratic priorities: preventing powerful actors from writing rules to their own advantage. It proposes targeted enforcement, quicker federal responses to complaints and export support for small and midsize businesses.The piece contends the issue could appeal across party lines and give Democrats a chance to claim an economic-fairness agenda with concrete benefits for exporters. A U.S. Chamber of Commerce position also calls for action against foreign policies it says disadvantage American businesses, showing that advocacy for such action is not confined to Democrats.[2]Different views on the topicA contrasting concern is that treating foreign regulation as an attack on U.S. companies can conflate discriminatory barriers with rules serving broader public goals. Brookings argues that the Trump administration’s proposed tariff response to foreign regulation risks protecting large technology companies’ profits rather than addressing barriers to trade.[5]Critics of unilateral tariffs argue that retaliation can raise costs for U.S. businesses and consumers, invite countermeasures and create uncertainty. The Center for American Progress reported that small-business importers paid substantially more in tariffs over the year through February 2026, while the Computer & Communications Industry Association has argued for resolving trade disputes with allies through the WTO rather than unilateral tariffs.[1][3]The political opportunity is also not necessarily exclusive to Democrats: the survey cited in the article found broad support among both parties, and business groups have likewise pressed for stronger responses to foreign measures they view as discriminatory.[4][2]