Some of Trump's strongest supporters are Democrats

[Brian Howell]

I was initially nonplussed by this story's headline. But the rational quickly made sense to me, both 

Noteworthy findings: "[I]ncreased perception of economic insecurity is associated with increased levels of racial resentment, but only among whites. Among people of color, economic peril has no effect on attitudes of racial resentment," and "increased sense of economic peril substantially increases racial resentment among both liberals and Democrats." 

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/05/some_of_trumps_strongest_supporters_are_registered_democrats_heres_why/

Related articles: (by the same authors; linked from the above referenced article)

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/10/10943196/trump-racial-resentment-vs-economic-anxiety

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/16/the_scary_truth_about_inequality_why_the_gop_has_little_reason_to_reconsider_its_dangerous_politics/

[jack saunders]

Yeah, at first it sounded like a wild flyer on a slow news day, but it has hardened into conventional wisdom:  Bernie and Trump are the same phenomenon, driven by the same set of facts.  This is precarious America fighting back against a system that outsources economic stability to market signals.  There is more anti-free trade fervor at Republican meetings than at Sanders rallies.

 

---

From: Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com>
To: Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:20 PM
Subject: [Ipse Dixit] Some of Trump's strongest supporters are Democrats

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ipse Dixit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Ipse-dixit+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Ipse-dixit/1a2f2106-9849-4919-aea2-e7a5fbd13019%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Scott Hotes]

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:50 PM, jack saunders <jack...@pacbell.net> wrote:

Yeah, at first it sounded like a wild flyer on a slow news day, but it has hardened into conventional wisdom:  Bernie and Trump are the same phenomenon, driven by the same set of facts.  This is precarious America fighting back against a system that outsources economic stability to market signals.  There is more anti-free trade fervor at Republican meetings than at Sanders rallies.

If by "free trade" you are referring to deals like NAFTA and the TPP, well, I'm not sure I can blame them:

- as of 2010, NAFTA has displaced roughly 683,000 US jobs:  http://epi.3cdn.net/fdade52b876e04793b_7fm6ivz2y.pdf

- the EFF on the TPP:  https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

Scott 

[jack saunders]

In any trade deal, jobs are lost and jobs are gained.  If you're the head negotiator, you bargain for the bundle, not one by one.  So if you see your constituency as the workforce of the next 20 years, you might deliver a promising bundle.  But those whose jobs you decided to let go will be inconsolable.  There can be no such thing as a universally applauded trade deal.

 

---

From: Scott Hotes <sah...@gmail.com>
To: jack saunders <jack...@pacbell.net>
Cc: Brian Howell <bdho...@gmail.com>; Ipse Dixit <Ipse-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Ipse Dixit] Some of Trump's strongest supporters are Democrats

[Scott Hotes]

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 4:41 PM, jack saunders <jack...@pacbell.net> wrote:

In any trade deal, jobs are lost and jobs are gained.  If you're the head negotiator, you bargain for the bundle, not one by one.  So if you see your constituency as the workforce of the next 20 years, you might deliver a promising bundle.  But those whose jobs you decided to let go will be inconsolable.  There can be no such thing as a universally applauded trade deal.

OK, that's true.  And maybe trade deals are not (necessarily) zero-sum.  But it is still worth 

looking back 20 years later after signing NAFTA to see who the big losers and big winners 

were.  I would love to hear a solid argument against the position that if nothing else, the 

Mexican people were major losers, see for example:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/11/24/what-weve-learned-from-nafta/under-nafta-mexico-suffered-and-the-united-states-felt-its-pain

Obama ran on a promise of reforming NAFTA.  That never happened.  Instead, he has

pushed very hard for the TPP, negotiated largely in secret, and at least some believe will

only exacerbate the problems for the Mexican people.

Maybe it's fair to debate the merits of these kinds of "free trade" deals.  I have a hard

time working out the merits of negotiating these kinds of deals in secret, in back-rooms,

with Senators having to sign no-leak contracts, less their constituents get wind of the

terms prior to signing.  That is not Democracy.

Scott

[Jack Saunders]

That's a very robust argument, Scott.  Mexican negotiators won...on behalf of their (paying) constituents -- Maquiladora investors and labor contractors -- while Clinton won the right to sell their kids smartphones.  Those who can't move are disadvantaged.  But neither govt should feel snookered.  What would happen was plain....at least to the elite deal structures. Those investment bankers were not surprised.  When debate is allowed in the public forum, elites do not find the subtle tendency to buy into their projects that they enjoy in a quiet series of confidential decisions.