Im-Politic: The Public and the Protests

Tags

African Americans, Associated Press, Democrats, election 2020, George Floyd, Im-Politic, National Opinion Research Center, NORC, police brutality, politics, polling, polls, pollsters, protests, racism, Republicans, Trump, University of Chicago

Here at RealityChek I try to focus on polls only that come up with unusually interesting results,, but even by that lofty standard, this new survey from the Associated Press-NORC [National Opinion Research Center] for Public Affairs Research (the latter affiliated with the University of Chicago) is unusually interesting. And for more than one reason.

First and maybe foremost, is the methodological note that came at the end: “[B]lack adults were sampled at a higher rate than their proportion of the population for reasons of analysis.” You don’t have to know much about polling to ask legitimately “What the heck is that about?”

After all, if you’re looking to find out what Americans (or any group) think about this or that subject, you need to ask a sample of that population that’s representative. In this case, sampling African Americans at a higher-than-justified rate is bound to produce results that permit African-American answers to distort the findings in the direction of African-American opinion. And given African Americans’ overwhelming preference for Democrats and (as far as we know) overwhelming opposition to President Trump, this practice is also bound to produce results that skew markedly pro-Democrat and anti-Trump.

Second, even with this “pro-African-American” bias, the survey shows that although a majority of Americans “approve…of the recent protests against police violence in response to [George] Floyd’s death,” the majority isn’t that big. Overall approval is only 54 percent (and again, this finding is thrown off by the aforementioned methology) and “strong approval” was expressed by only 21 percent.

Black Americans’ backing was much stronger: 81 percent overall, with 71 percent strongly approving.

Third, Americans as a whole aren’t buying the notion that the recent protests have been all or mostly peaceful. Indeed, only 27 percent agree with those characterizations combined. Moreover, a slim majority (51 percent) favored the description “both peaceful and violent” and fully 22 percent regarded tham as all or mostly violent.”

And again, the numbers tilting toward emphasizing the violence seen during the protests have probably been depressed by the pro-African-American and therefore pro-Democratic skew of the sample. Nearly half (49 percent) of Democrats called the protests all or mostly peaceful. At the same time, 42 percent of them viewed the protests as “both peaceful and violent.”

Fourth, no racially broken down results were provided for the violence question, but they were presented for the results judging “law enforcement’s response.” In this case, the U.S. public as a whole chose “appropriate response” over “excessive force” by 55 percent to 44 percent. But 70 percent of black Americans believed the police et al used too much force – which surely propped up the 44 percent figure reported for Americans as a whole.

Finally, don’t conclude from the above results that this survey offers much good news for President Trump and his supporters and the relatively hardline approach they’ve favored for handling the protests. As the Associated Press and NORC put it: “Over half of all Americans say his response made things worse and just 12% say it made things better. While there are racial differences, about half of both white Americans (51%) and black Americans (72%) feel that the president’s response made things worse. ”

And in this case, the bizarre sample used by the Associated Press and NORC can’t come close to explaining these underwater Trump ratings. The most positive pro-Trump spin that makes any sense is that although there’s major overall public support for the President’s positions and the actions that logically follow, he’s getting almost no credit for advocating them.

Im-Politic: On Sports, Politics, and Boundaries

Tags

boycotts, China, culture, entertainment, First Amendment, free speech, Hong Kong protests, Im-Politic, national anthem, National Basketball Association, National Invitational Tournament, NBA, politics, Princeton University, protests, social media, sports, Vietnam War

One my my funnest (indulge me) memories of college was driving round trip between central New Jersey and New York City’s Madison Square Garden four times one week in the spring of 1975 to see the Princeton men’s basketball team play in – and win! – the National Invitational Tournament (which was a reasonably big deal back then).

During one of the games, a friend and I unfurled a dorm-made sign protesting something or other about the rapidly ending Vietnam War. We considered it an important message to send, and given the conflict’s damage to America’s economy, politics, society, and culture, and given the destruction wreaked throughout Southeast Asia, I have no problem all these decades later with the content.

In retrospect, though, I wish we’d left the banner back on campus, because I’m now convinced that injecting political and policy debates into a college basketball game wasn’t the right decision. I’m bringing it up today because I wish those well-meaning basketball fans supporting the Hong Kong protesters and China’s other repressive policies inside the arena would recognize that these actions are mistaken, too.

Don’t get me wrong: As I’ve written, I have no problem with athletes and other figures from the sports world expressing political and policy views. I don’t find them to be of any special interest, and way too often they’re the epitomes of ignorance, virtue signaling, or both. But all of them – along with celebrities and others from entertainment circles – unmistakably enjoy the same First Amendment rights of all other Americans. (Complications do arise, however, when their free speech rights clash with their obligations as employees of companies concerned that such words and actions will be bad for business.)

In fact, I’ve also urged National Basketball Association officials, players, owners, and other employees to think much more seriously about their partnership with China (and, by extension, other repressive countries), and even consider a boycott.

But just as I’ve urged athletes to keep their political views (e.g, taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem before pro football games) off the court and playing field (because their fame gives them so many other high-profile opportunities to speak out – and to big audiences), I’d urge fans to keep home their own beliefs, however heartfelt and morally compelling. The same, by the way, should apply to entertainers turning awards shows into political fora.

For even though spectators lack the renown and followings of athletes and entertainers, they’re hardly devoid of influence. They can choose to stay away from arenas, cinemas, theaters, and other venues showcasing performers, franchises, or entertainment businesses whose actions or statements they dislike. They can also organize boycotts of these individuals and organizations if they wish – and social media gives them a more powerful megaphone than ever. (For the record, I’m anything but enthusiastic about such politicization, especially regarding prominent individuals and organizations who fail to take desired stances.)

And I can’t imagine how any court could legitimately decide that such protesters aren’t allowed to make their views known verbally and/or visually on public transportation corridors and systems leading to and servicing sports or entertainment venues (subject of course to any level of government’s right to regulate protest activity in such a way as to permit travel and other everyday activity from proceeding).

But even if businesses and organizations that stage sports or entertainment events lacked the legal authority to ban activity at events that has nothing intrinsically to do with the sporting or entertainment angle of these events (the current legal consensus is pretty unclear, at least judging from this article), would anyone this side of rational and sane really want to go to, say, a Los Angeles Lakers pro basketball game and be forced to listen to some attendees heckle star LeBron James all contest long for his failure to condemn China’s human rights practices? Or to need to see “Free Hong Kong” banners throughout the Staples Center or any other NBA court?

The law plainly prevents such heckling or chants or other disruptive behavior at entertainment events where it’s crucial to listen to the performers. But even when speaking and listening aren’t important, who would really want to visit an art museum whose every gallery contains a protester or two or ten holding up Pro-Life or Pro-Choice signs? Who would really want to walk around a Central Park blanketed with Dump Trump or MAGA posters?

The sports, entertainment, and cultural worlds shouldn’t be shielded from politics and policy, and indeed can’t be – unless we want to make them completely irrelevant to our lives and to our posterity. But given all the opportunities available to all Americans nowadays to express political and policy views, it seems not only entirely reasonable to treat actual performances as refuges – including as escapist opportunities, from these other spheres, but essential to the health and vibrancy of both individuals and the nation as a whole. And these are boundaries that a genuinely wise society should be respected regardless of whether, and to what extent, they’re legally enforceable or not.

Im-Politic: You Bet Oprah Could Win

Tags

2016 elections, 2018 elections, 2020 elections, Bernie Sanders, Democrats, economy, Elizabeth Warren, Im-Politic, independents, Joe Biden, Oprah Winfrey, politics, Republicans, Trump

Here’s a confession: I’ve never watched “Oprah.”

Still, since I’ve been in a waking state for much of the last few decades, I’m of course aware of the prominence she’s achieved in American culture and society, and the high regard in which so many hold her. That’s why I take absolutely seriously the idea that Oprah Winfrey could win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, and even take the White House.

One suggestive data point is already out. In a new poll, she tops President Trump by an impressive ten percentage points as a presidential choice. And as many observers have pointed out, unless the field of likely Democratic White House hopefuls changes markedly in the next two or so years (and we’re of course still awfully early in the presidential cycle, so don’t rule out that possibility by any means), Winfrey would face unusually flawed opponents.

Indeed, at this point, the leading Democratic contenders look to be Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, and former Vice President Joe Biden. Whatever you think of them as individuals either personally or politically, all three are septuagenarians, and two look to be well to the Left of a critical mass of American voters. And underscoring their vulnerability is how enthusiastically so many Democrats and progressives have reacted to the idea of “Oprah 2020.”

More reasons for optimism about a Winfrey White House run:

>She’s rich as Croesus and would have no trouble raising outside money.

>She has ocean-wide name recognition.

>She has made a career largely on her matchless ability to “feel the pain” of Main Street Americans (a skill that former President Bill Clinton so effectively conveyed).

>Mr. Trump has already broken through the celebrity “glass ceiling.”

>Similarly, she shows no evidence of being a whiz on policy issues, but no one associated such expertise with candidate Trump, either. And plenty of veteran Democratic- and liberal leaning academics and other specialists would no doubt flock to her cause and give her all the tutoring she needs for a campaign.

>Like the president, she can boast real business success.

Obviously, Winfrey would face important obstacles. I wouldn’t include race or gender on that list. It seems clear to me she’s transcended both categories. But her background isn’t completely scandal-free – as this article makes clear. In this vein, she could well be hurt from the inevitable gushing her candidacy will draw from a Hollywood/celebrity class that much of the public finds completely off-putting.

Perhaps most important, once Winfrey throws her hat in the ring, the halo currently surrounding her will surely fall off, and she’ll start looking more like a conventional politician. Certainly, even though the Mainstream Media will be favorably disposed to her (as they have been to any Trump opponent), she’ll still be under a much harsher spotlight than she has been so far.

Even so, there’s one advantage she’ll have in a 2020 campaign that I believe will be especially important in putting her over the top. And I feel pretty confident about this view even if Mr. Trump enjoys major traditional tailwinds like an economy that keeps performing reasonably well (at least by the standard indicators that attract all the media attention) and U.S. avoidance of military involvement in foreign crises that generate lots of casualties and costs.

Let’s call this advantage “Trump fatigue syndrome.” It’s entirely possible that Americans could enjoy the kinds of safety and prosperity that have often won presidents second terms, and still yearn for a return to normality in their politics and public life – or at least greater normality.

On the one hand, I agree with those (including many Democrats) who insist that the typical voter is much less interested in the “Russia-gate” charges and the other scandals with which the president has been charged than with their personal financial and economic conditions, and their sense of security.

On the other hand, though, I’m confident that those charges, their endless repetition in the media, and the President’s consistently harsh reactions to them and to any and all criticisms, are generating a wearying effect – and starting to erode the broad voter anger that contributed so much to Mr. Trump’s 2016 victory. In other words, outrage can be exhausting even for a die-hard Trump-er, and I expect Trump fatigue to spread as long as the current level of political warfare continues.

Indeed, the recent Alabama U.S. Senate and Virginia gubernatorial elections – won by moderate, soft-spoken Democrats amid an improving economy – indicate that precisely this syndrome is becoming established among relatively well-to-do suburban voters who supported the President in the general election. The persistence of Mr. Trump’s weak national poll ratings during at least decent economic times is another sign that many of his Republican, conservative, and independent backers are tiring of his act.

I also expect that the Democrats and the President’s other opponents know this, and will ensure that the various investigations underway into the actions of Mr. Trump and his family, aides, and other associates continue as long as possible. Trump foes in the media, political, and entertainment worlds are likely to keep baiting him with social media and other attacks for the same reason. The only risk they would run (and it’s not negligible):  At some point, the public could well demand that they “put up” (with some specific evidence of major Trump wrongdoing) or “shut up.”     

Even so, unless opposition research, or simply the campaign grind, destroys her aura of empathy and moderation and good sense, who better to cure Trump fatigue, at least by promising to restore some peace and quiet and dignity to the White House, than Winfrey?

Strangely, though, my case for Oprah 2020 also indicates that a major turn for the worse in America’s fortunes could greatly reduce her odds of winning the White House. Despite her impressive business career, I’m by no means convinced that many voters would regard Winfrey as an effective recession fighter. It seems even less plausible that she’d be seen as a promising commander-in-chief type if the world starts appearing a lot more dangerous. (Nor does that judgment reflect gender considerations. Unless you think many voters doubted 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s national security experience or toughness?) Even more important, a worsening economy and a more menacing world would appear a great formula for reigniting American political anger – which Winfrey would struggle to mollify.

And don’t forget the biggest threat to a Winfrey candidacy (though it seems to me unlikely at present):  Mr. Trump is removed from office, and in the process eliminate the shine from the ideas of celebrity candidacies and presidencies. 

But however strongly I feel that, barring a Trump exit, Winfrey could be taking the oath of office in Washington, D.C. on January 20, 2021, I’m less sure about two other big questions: Will she start to play a political role on behalf of Democrats in this year’s off-year elections? And will she be able to encourage enough additional Trump fatigue to affect the outcome notably?

Im-Politic: How I Scooped The Times on Trump and Nationalism 25 Years Ago

Tags

America First, Democrats, elites, environmentalists, foreign policy, globalism, globalization, Im-Politic, Immigration, internationalism, interventionism, middle class, minoriites, nationalism, politics, Populism, Republicans, sovereignty, The National Interest, The New York Times, Thomas Edsall, Trade, Trump, working class

However conceited it sounds, it really is time – again – 🙂 to pat myself on the back. This morning’s New York Times featured a long analysis by contributor Thomas Edsall titled “The End of Left and Right as We Knew Them.” The main thesis (as per a quote from the director of the “International Institutions and Global Governance Program” at the Council on Foreign Relations):

“The most salient political division today is not between conservatives and liberals in the United States or social democrats in the United Kingdom and France, but between nationalists and globalists.”

Edsall himself elaborates:

“By now it has become quite clear that conservative parties in Europe and the United States have been gaining strength from white voters who have been mobilized around issues related to nationalism — resistance to open borders and to third-world immigration. … On the liberal side, the Democratic Party and the center-left European parties have been allied in favor of globalization, if we define globalization as receptivity to open borders, the expansion of local and nationalistic perspectives and support for a less rigid social order and for liberal cultural, immigration and trade policies.”

Moreover, at the heart of these new divisions are class distinctions: The nationalists on both sides of the Atlantic are likeliest to be relatively poor and relatively uneducated – although Edsall does present research findings showing – unconvincingly in my view – that classic “racial resentment, more than economic anxiety, influenced the [U.S.} presidential election.”

Yet the author also unmistakably believes that the left “In recent decades…both in Europe and in the United States [has] begun to include and reflect the views of large numbers of well-educated elites — relatively affluent knowledge or creative class workers….” Indeed, he coins a nice phrase: “The rise of the affluent left.”

So what does this have to do with yours truly? Plenty. Because nearly 25 years ago, I predicted the development of exactly the same trend. My forecast came in an article for the journal The National Interest that was called (wait for it) “Beyond Left and Right” – and it got a fair amount of media attention from both liberals and conservatives. (The National Interest itself is on the right end of the spectrum.) 

Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find versions on-line that aren’t behind pay walls, but here are a few excerpts from a dog-eared xerox:

“…a new underlying fault line [replacing the old left-right divisions] is already emerging in American foreign policy, dividing what might best be called nationalists and internationalists. In terms of American diplomacy, this new alignment will pit a generic model of foreign policy-making that long predates the Cold War – one based at bottom…on the belief that international activism itself is the key to American security and prosperity – against a rival approach…whose supreme goal is consolidating American military and economic strength, and enhancing America’s freedom of action. In the realm of economic policy, those who argue that the nation-state, as an economic player, is obsolete or dangerous will vie with those convinced of its continuing relevance and legitimacy. In electoral politics, sharp differences in economic interests and cultural outlooks will produce a widening rift between business, professional,and government elites on the one hand, and wage-earners on the other. The issue of class, in other words, is re-emerging in American politics.”

I added that these divisions were arising from “the different impact of world economic trends on different classes” and were producing “a foreign policy debate [that] increasingly pits social and economic classes against each other, focusing on the questions of who pays the costs and who incurs most of the risks involved in competing economic and security policies.

“Polls repeatedly show that the best educated and wealthiest Americans are the staunchest internationalists on both security and economic issues. The surveys also show strong support for internationalist policies to be lacking nearly everywhere else on the social spectrum. “

And there’s more. I wrote that “At the mass public level,” the nationalist faction would be comprised of “blue collar union members, white collar middle managers and small businessmen from the Perotista ranks; family- and community-oriented immigrants; and grassroots environmental activists.”

As for their rivals, “The social base of internationalism would include many big multinational businesses and their upper level managers, financiers, professionals, and retailers. Journalists and the rest of the mass media, as well as academics, also tend to support an idealistic globalism. Other members of a new internationalist coalition might include minorities whose fear of cultural conservative nationalists outweighs their qualms about job-destroying internationalist free-trade economics, and affluent, mainstream environmentalists.”

And there was more on the role of the media: “Much of what they lack in numbers, the internationalists would make up for in money, influence, and the aura of respectability that their media allies will continue to provide.”

What would happen to liberal and conservative internationalists in the process? The former

“may wind up permanently alienating labor, minorities, and the white-collar middle class whether they intend to or not – and lose their identity as champions of the underdog and as agents of progressive change in the process. Internationalists of the Right will face similar problems. Without offering their voters something more than NAFTA, the continuing “creative destruction” of their jobs, endless foreign interventions, and Marilyn Quayle’s definition of family values, it is difficult to see them avoiding George [H.W.] Bush’s political fate.”

For good measure, I added that if they do crystallize, the resulting new coalitions are likely to be “less inclined to compromise than their predecessors….”

Clearly, I didn’t get everything right. But I’m kind of amazed at how many developments I absolutely nailed. Further, we’re only a few months into the Trump era. In other words, the American political realignment I anticipated still probably has a long ways to go.

Im-Politic: The Uses of Anger

Tags

Alexandria shooting, anger, conservatives, Democrats, Im-Politic, liberals, politics, rage, Republicans, Steve Scalise, violence

The more I think about the surge in political rage that’s just produced the terrifying attempt to assassinate Republican Members of Congress in Alexandria, Va., the more I’m convinced that the resulting deluge of well-intentioned commentary and introspection has missed a big reason for doubting that, as so many have urged, Americans will stop demonizing and dehumanizing their political opponents. Moreover, I’m also more convinced that there are real limits to how far this admittedly troubling tendency actually should go.

To clarify right away, this isn’t to say that violence is ever justified in U.S. public life — although history teaches us to be wary even of this generally worthy sentiment. For example, I’m not at all convinced that Americans would have responded even in the inadequate way they did to problems in the country’s then-heavily black inner cities had riots not convulsed many of them. The nation almost certainly wouldn’t have responded as quickly as it did. And I haven’t forgotten that too many of the rioters were simply looters.

I am prepared, though, to say that violence isn’t ever justified in public life nowadays. Ditto for urging violence, either explicitly or through various dog whistles.

But it’s going to be a lot harder to exorcise extreme, hate-filled rhetoric and emotions. For many of the most prominent assumptions and arguments made about most of our major public issues entail the claim that those who disagree aren’t simply motivated by different philosophies and ideologies. They’re motivated by – often appallingly and/or dangerously – selfish interests. And many of these claims by no means should be dismissed out of hand.

Are there inexcusable, purposeful excesses? How could there not be? We’re dealing with human beings here. But take the left-ish view of the whole cluster of economic inequality issues. Do many champions of cuts in various safety net and other social programs sincerely believe that they have on net eroded incentives to work and form families? Obviously the answer is Yes.

But are many others simply selfish? Of course they are. Are many working openly or on the sly for interests that would lose income or profits if taxes were raised to finance such spending – although they would clearly remain affluent by any reasonable measure? Yup. Has American history been filled with the efforts of the affluent and the powerful to maintain their positions at the expense of the poorer and weaker? How could anyone dispute this? Should plutocracy and its defense not be called out? Absolutely not.

Similar points can be made about causes favored by liberals and Democrats. Are many on the left acting mainly out of compassion or other altruistic sentiments when urging legalization and citizenship for illegal immigrants? Do many other genuinely believe that various forms of amnesty-like policies will benefit the economy, including more workers? Definitely.

Do many others back amnesty etc in the hope of creating new pro-Democratic voting blocs or expanding existing ones, regardless of the impact on public safety or social cohesion? No doubt about it. And can’t signs be seen of misplaced senses of guilt so powerful that they shunt completely aside the needs of the existing legal population? Clearly they can. Should this kind of hypocrisy or childishness be ignored? How would that strengthen democracy?

No doubt you all can come up with many other comparable examples – because the creation and maintenance of a democracy can’t possibly guarantee that men (and women) have or will become angels. But the genius of this country’s politics so far (with the mammoth exception of the Civil War) has been to keep political battles battles in name only, and to sustain the consensus that, though opponents may be deeply and justifiably hated, their removal from power or the frustration of their aims according to accepted procedures is the only acceptable goal – not their literal destruction.

The trick, then, or much of it, is for Americans to learn (or re-learn) the ability to decompress once even the most heated political campaigns or legislative contests have ended, to accept as legitimate any winner – even the most seemingly odious – who has triumphed within the specified rules, and to continue pushing causes as fiercely as ever while respecting those bounds. You say you don’t like some of the rules and bounds? Work (again, within the system, or via peaceful civil disobedience if you so choose) to replace them. The system makes such mechanisms available.

As I write these words, I find myself thinking of the human maturation process and to the development of perspective so central to its arrival. And I can’t help but think that’s no coincidence.

Im-Politic: Bubble Kool-Aid is Spreading Through the US Electorate

Tags

2016 election, Democrats, Financial Crisis, Great Recession, Im-Politic, Immigration, politics, private sector, Republicans, The New York Times, Thomas Edsall, Trade

It’s becoming increasingly and understandably popular to predict that 2016’s rock-em-sock-em presidential election could spark a major realignment in American politics. In particular, it’s nearly impossible to see how the current Republican Party survives the insurrection led by its presidential nominee, Donald Trump.

Less apparent but no less important are the big shifts that are already taking place, as a new New York Times article unmistakably demonstrates. The piece, by Thomas Edsall, also shows that both major parties show signs of historic change, and unwittingly reveals that Democrats in particular are increasingly backing a model for the economy that has already failed catastrophically.

Edsall’s analysis relies on several recent polls and additional academic research, and although I have no illusions about the reliability of such surveys, especially when they’re looking at broad trends as opposed to political races, they’re difficult to dismiss. When they generally track one another, their credibility seems particularly high.

These studies and findings come from the Pew Foundation, the Brookings Institution, The Johns Hopkins University, the University of Virginia, and the Public Religion Research Institute – an impressive range of sources. The headline on Edsall’s story spotlights the trend he views as most important: American politics is experiencing a “great inversion” of the “New Deal order among white voters.” Specifically,

“From the 1930s into the 1980s and early 1990s, majorities of downscale whites voted Democratic and upscale whites voted Republican. Now, looking at combined male and female vote totals, the opposite is true.”

Couple this with the Democrats’ mounting support among minority Americans and immigrants and their offspring – who are acutely aware of the economic and social progress made since their parents’ days, or who compare life in the United States versus the circumstances in their home countries – and the party’s political prospects definitely seem on the upswing.

Whether a new age of such Democrats’ dominance will be good for the country is a separate issue, and here the developments described by Edsall are positively depressing. The main reason: The Democrats’ mounting belief in addressing some of the economy’s prime failings with bigger government handouts rather than with needed improvement in the structure and workings of the private sector.

For example, according to the University of Virginia report, even the white “social elites” who are trending Democratic strongly believe that “the system is rigged in favor” of the wealthy (by a 3 to 1 margin) and that Wall Street and big business “profit at the expense of ordinary Americans….” (by a 6 to 1 margin).  Nothing of course intrinsically wrong with that.

But here’s their solution: “[B]y better than 2 to 1…the government ‘should do more to improve the lives of ordinary Americans.’” Further, there’s compelling – though not conclusive – evidence that support for more government activism extends only to more generous import supports and actual subsidies, rather than reforms that could actually improve job availability and pay in the private sector.

Principally, the Virginia data show very strong support for more lenient immigration policies among the elites. And although this study contains no data on trade policy, the Public Religion Research Institute has just confirmed what numerous other polling groups have found: Many more rank-and-file Republicans have become more skeptical about the U.S. approach to globalization than Democrats. So although in recent decades, Democratic members of Congress (as opposed to Democratic presidents) have led the opposition to new trade agreements and similar policy decisions, they’re looking increasingly out of step with their constituents.

There’s no question that continually rising floods of imports and immigrants would serve the short-term interests of the elites who keep flocking to Democratic ranks. What’s not to like about cheaper and cheaper consumer goods, not to mention nannies and janitors and gardeners? So much the better if millennials – who for the most part lack any experience with or memory of the industrial economy and its blessings for working people – can be seduced by the false promises of prospering through waiting tables, developing killer apps, or taking on ever more gig work. And if low-income working class minorities believe that government largesse will adequately substitute for the destruction of factory jobs and the all the gainful employment they create outside industry – well, jackpot!

The problem, of course, is that the United States tried this formula for economic health during the 2000s. And it’s still living with the destruction wreaked by the financial crisis and Great Recession that inevitably resulted from neglecting two vital and connected needs: producing everyday goods and services at home, and generating adequate wage and salary income. Instead, the nation drank the kool-aid that it could borrow and spend its way to durable prosperity.

It’s been bad enough, in other words, that America’s political, economic and business establishments haven’t learned the lessons of the previous decades. Now it looks like their cluelessness will be reinforced by those groups on the rise in the U.S. electorate.

Im-Politic: A Preview of Trump-ism without Trump?

Tags

2016 election, amnesty, attrition, Contract for the American Voter, Democrats, deportation, Donald Trump, entitlements, establishment, healthcare, Im-Politic, Immigration, immigration magnet, independents, Jobs, NAFTA, Obamacare, Peggy Noonan, politics, Populism, Republicans, TPP, Trade, Trans-Pacific Partnership, Wall Street Journal

Throughout this circus of a presidential campaign, I’ve emphasized the importance of distinguishing between Donald Trump’s myriad personal failings and the Republican presidential nominee’s campaign positions – which I remain convinced can form the basis of an urgently needed, sensible, and therefore, enduring new American populism. This week, substantial support for this proposition has come from Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan and, more surprisingly, from Trump himself.

In an October 20 essay, Noonan – long one of the most effective critics of the corporate-funded Republican establishment that Trump thoroughly trounced during the primaries – described the pillars of “Trump-ism without Trump” with her usual wit and grace. Among the highlights:

>He “would have spoken at great and compelling length of how the huge, complicated trade agreements created the past quarter-century can be improved upon with an eye to helping the American worker”:

>He “would have argued that controlling entitlement spending is a necessary thing but not, in fact, this moment’s priority. People have been battered since the crash, in many ways, and nothing feels stable now”:

>And he “would have known of America’s hidden fractures, and would have insisted that a healthy moderate-populist movement cannot begin as or devolve into a nationalist, identity-politics movement.”

The only matter on which I believe Noonan is seriously off-base is immigration. I certainly agree with her that Trump should have “explained his immigration proposals with a kind of loving logic—we must secure our borders for a host of serious reasons, and here they are. But we are grateful for our legal immigrants….” The problem is with her apparent belief that “In time, after we’ve fully secured our borders and the air of emergency is gone, we will turn to regularizing the situation of everyone here….”

As I’ve written, this popular (with both wings of the establishment) version of amnesty inevitably will supercharge America’s “immigration magnet.” The perceived likelihood of eventual legalization can only bring millions more impoverished third world-ers to the nation’s various doorsteps. It’s inconceivable that even a President Trump would take the measures needed – which would surely involve some use of force – to keep these masses, and especially the women and children, at bay.

The far better, indeed only realistic, approach is one that Trump himself has unfortunately barely mentioned: a stout refusal to legalize in any form accompanied by a strategy of attrition – i.e., encouraging illegals to leave both by boosting efforts to keep them out of the workplace, and by denying them (and their anchor children) public benefits.

But it’s almost like Trump was listening. Two days later, he came out with a “Contract for the American Voter” that echoed much of Noonan’s column. He promised that in his first hundred days in office, he would announce his “intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal,” along with withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. Both measures should draw strong support from Democrats and independents. In addition, Trump would designate China a currency manipulator, and order an inventory of predatory foreign trade practices.

On immigration, he omitted any reference to blanket deportation of all illegals and instead focused on starting to remove “the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back”; to de-fund Sanctuary Cities; and to “suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.” Especially in the political climate that would result from a Trump victory, would most Democrats on Capitol Hill fall on their swords to prevent any of this?

And what did Trump vow re entitlement reforms? The phrase doesn’t appear at all in the Contract, although the list of legislative proposals does include the repeal of Obamacare and replacement with a system (described only generally, to be sure) that could well appeal to most Republicans and many independents, and that in combination with other measures mentioned could bend the national healthcare cost curve down further.

Couple these ideas with Trump’s support for a big infrastructure build-out and repair program; his broadly non-interventionist foreign policy stance combined with a big (job-creating) defense buildup; new government ethics reforms that seek to halt the corrupting revolving door between government and private sector; and any kind of serious middle class tax relief, and it looks to me like a (mandate-sized) winning formula – for a politician who can pass the interlocking personality, character, and temperament tests.

Can such leaders emerge from the current political system, as I recently asked? Are American politicians who rise up through this system simply too beholden to special interests, or too thoroughly imbued with the “If you want to get along go along” ethos to favor rocking any big boats? I still can’t say I know the answer. But I’m as confident as ever that unless and until this kind of candidate emerges, American politics is going to remain one very angry space.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Obama’s Babble on Trade Politics

Tags

BloombergBusinessweek, exports, free trade agreements, Korea, KORUS, Obama, politics, Populism, public opinion, TPP, Trade, Trans-Pacific Partnership, {What's Left of) Our Economy

Since his presidency began, Barack Obama has left little doubt that the substance of trade policy isn’t his strong suit. For example,

>Near the end of his first year in office, the president claimed that Asia’s generally protectionist economies actually want to buy American products, but that their imports from the United States were weak “partly because we just haven’t been as aggressive as we need to be….”

>Mr. Obama’s White House predicted that his 2012 KORUS trade deal would expand U.S. gross exports of goods to this new bilateral partner by at least $10 billion annually. But on a monthly basis, they’re down nearly 30 percent. From the first four months of 2013 (the first full calendar year during which the agreement has been in effect) to the first four months of this year, U.S. goods exports are down 6.65 percent.

>His administration routinely touts his Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal for creating a single market representing 40 percent of the entire world economy. But the president seems unaware that the United States makes up nearly two-thirds of this new trade zone.

Last week, in an interview with BloombergBusinessweek, the president demonstrated that his grasp of the politics of trade is no firmer. On the one hand, Mr. Obama dismissed his interlocutors’ suggestion that he has “not done a good job of selling the benefits of trade to people who feel that this is something that’s taking their jobs, taking away their future” by contending that “the majority of Americans, surveys show, still favor free trade. It’s just that those who are opposed feel it much more intensely.”

Moreover, he added, “If you talk to the younger generation here in the United States, they’re not knee-jerk anti-trade. They’re not anti-globalization. If you look at surveys, it tends to be older workers who are feeling displaced who are attracted to this notion of ‘let’s pull up the drawbridge and shut everybody off.’”

On the other hand, the president insisted that:

“if I am a CEO in a boardroom right now, I should be thinking about, how do I make sure my workers are making a decent wage? And if I’m a shareholder, that is something I should be paying attention to, too, because if you’re not, that’s when you start getting the kinds of political pushback that you’re seeing here in the United States. That’s how you start getting a Brexit campaign. Over time, you’ll strangle this goose that’s been laying you all these golden eggs. Share the eggs.”

That is, Mr. Obama is urging business leaders to wake up and head off a populist revolt that he’s supremely confident won’t take place – especially as nature keeps taking its course and transforms the American population.

There’s no doubt that a politician who has won the White House knows more than a thing or two about public opinion. But these incoherent views on trade politics also strongly suggest that Mr. Obama has been lucky in one key respect: For all the sporadic headlines they made, globalization-related concerns were still largely off voters’ screens during his presidential years.

Im-Politic: So Why Not Trump-Sanders? (Or Vice Versa?)

Tags

2016 elections, abortion, Bernie Sanders, campaign finance, Democrats, Donald Trump, Im-Politic, Immigration, New Deal coalition, politics, realignment, Republicans, Trade, Wall Street reform

As long as we’re in this political Annus Bizarricus (or whatever the Latin-ism would be), why not take it one pattern-shattering one step further.  Why not make the case for a Trump-Sanders (or Sanders-Trump) fusion ticket?

I’m not saying that it’s likely to happen, or that it’s even possible. Nor am I saying that it should necessarily happen for the good of the country. What I am saying is that it’s nothing less than stunning at how strong a case can be made for this merger, at least on paper.

Clearly, there’s a vast stylistic gap between the two candidates. Real estate tycoon Donald Trump flaunts his jet set, billionaire lifestyle. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders clearly is proud of his Ben-and-Jerry set Sixties roots. The core Trump and Sanders constituencies seem dramatically different, too – downwardly mobile, socially and culturally traditional older middle class and working class white men and women for the former, college-educated, relatively affluent younger whites, and aging Baby Boomers who remain socially and culturally young at heart for the latter.

But odd couple pairings as such are hardly unknown in American politics. Think Obama-Biden. Or Reagan-Bush. Or Carter-Mondale. Or JFK-LBJ. Nor is it unknown for voting blocs that appear to have nothing in common suddenly to link arms to transform the political landscape. Think “New Deal coalition” – which ruled American politics for decades thanks to southern Democrats joining with Catholic workers from the big northeastern cities. And the modern Republican party has succeeded largely by appealing to a wide variety of conservatives who lately seem increasingly and deeply resentful of each other: one percenters and other “country club conservatives,” those downwardly mobile middle- and working-class whites, evangelical/cultural conservatives, and libertarians.

And think of the issue stances that Trump and Sanders themselves have in common – which include the hottest-button subjects of the present campaign. Both plainly have it in for Wall Street and its unearned and often destructive privileges. As a result, both obviously want an end to a campaign finance regime that favors the plutocrats and other moneyed special interests. Both strongly opposed the second Iraq War. (Although Trump has promised to defeat ISIS militarily, mainly with American power, he’s also hinted at a more standoffish approach, at least at first.  Sanders has suggested that Middle Eastern countries themselves should do the heaviest military lifting.) Both have been outspoken critics of America’s current, offshoring-happy trade policies. And although Sanders has recently sought to assure Democratic Hispanic voters of his Open Borders bona fides, his earlier stance on immigration issues made clear his grave – and Trump-like – concerns that mass influxes of poorly skilled and educated newcomers in particular would kneecap American workers’ wages.  

Moreover, largely as a result of these broad areas of agreement – and potential agreement – both are suspect partisans in the eyes of many Republicans and Democrats – and for entirely understandable reasons.

It’s even easy to see, at least in theory, where certain stretches of Trump-Sanders common ground could foster consensus in areas where they don’t appear to see eye to eye. For example, fighting climate change has been one of Sanders’ major political passions. Trump has said little on the subject. But trade measures that significantly cut imports from China would limit total global greenhouse gas emissions and pollution levels by slowing the growth of China’s appallingly filthy manufacturing sector. And by doing so, it would enable domestic manufacturers to accept stricter regulations on their own emissions etc without losing global competitiveness, and/or feeling greater pressure to send production to China and other pollution/greenhouse havens.

Another example (though not remotely such a no-brainer): Sanders is strongly pro-choice. Reacting to charges that Planned Parenthood has engaged in and even profited from trade fetal tissue, Trump has been highly critical of the organization and the government subsidies it receives. Yet abortion clearly isn’t an issue that excites Trump one way or the other. So if he really is a master deal cutter, he would surely be open to some kind of compromise.  

One possibility;  He emphatically endorses the essence of Roe vs. Wade and the principle of women controlling their own bodies – and futures – in exchange for a wrist-slap for Planned Parenthood and even a promise by the organization to steer widely clear of the body parts business (in a way that skirted the issue of its actual record, which is as yet unclear). In turn, it’s possible that supporters of both candidates have become so trusting in their apolitical instincts, and so tired of the dueling talking points of more conventional politicians on both sides, that a deal along these lines could pave the way for a stronger national consensus on the issue.

In fact, the main obstacles to this “Dream Ticket” arguably are personal. And, as The Donald might put it, “Yuuuuuuge.” Who would get top billing? Could they work out some kind of co-presidency deal (which would need to be informal due to Constitutional issues)? Could they exchange the presidency and vice presidency after two years?

I’m sure that readers will be able to think of many more pro- and anti-arguments – and I hope you’ll bring them up in comments! But I also hope that the skeptics in particular will keep two points in mind. First, although America’s major political parties in their current forms make sense in many other respects, in many others, they’re completely illogical and inconsistent – as is being made clear by the strength of “outsider” candidates, and in particular by many Republican voters’ lack of interest in Trump’s ideological purity. Second, American politics has seen major realignments before, and generally within the two-party framework.

So even if Trump and Sanders won’t or can’t pull this revolution off, it still might simply be awaiting a different, more ideological and temperamentally compatible, and more imaginative group of leaders. Which is to say, it might simply be awaiting a better generation of politicians.  

Im-Politic: Race-Mongering Enters the Trade Debate

Tags

African Americans, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Congressional Black Caucus, conservatives, Democrats, Employment, fast track, Gregory Meeks, Im-Politic, Labor Department, liberals, manufacturing jobs, Obama, politics, race relations, racism, Republicans, TPP, Trade, Trans-Pacific Partnership, urban poverty

It seems that New York City Democratic House Member Greg Meeks doesn’t think relations between blacks and whites in America lately have been strained enough by the series of dubious police shootings and the reactions they’ve ignited over the last year. And that there’s not enough bad blood in American politics overall lately. And that the heated debate in Congress and the nation over trade policy hasn’t been muddied with enough phony arguments. So he decided to inject a little race-mongering into the policy fight over President Obama’s proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement and a bill to grant the president fast track trade negotiating authority.

Meeks didn’t exactly come out and say that right-of-center opponents of the president’s trade agenda are racist. But his claims, made to members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and then to reporters, fail to qualify only if cynical Clintonian parsing is now the norm in American politics. According to Meeks, as reported by Politico, “[Mr. Obama] has endured things that no other president has,” and that “in his own discussions with colleagues he’s linked opposition to the president’s trade agenda to the hounding of Obama for his birth certificate and never-quite-ending questions about his religion. ‘Some folks don’t want to give him a vote because they don’t want to give him the authority every other president has had.’”

The New York Democrat therefore was too smart to smear anti-TPP and fast track Democrats and other liberals generally with the racism charge. After all, even most of the non-blacks among them have consistently supported the president’s other programs. But what about backing for the president’s trade agenda by Republicans and conservatives that neither Mr. Obama nor African-Americans (rightly or wrongly) have ever viewed as allies? And what of those on the Right who have essentially nudged and winked as more their radical fellows have cast the aspersions on the president’s background Meeks specifies? How does the Congressman’s racial paradigm explain their often pro-fast track and TPP positions?

Even worse, when it comes to substance, Meeks is ignoring (or doesn’t know about) the powerful evidence that the kinds of trade deals he’s long supported have devastated blacks’ economic prospects. How? By destroying jobs they’ve held in the relatively high-paying manufacturing sector. Not coincidentally, that’s the sector that has long dominated American trade flows. According to an analysis of government data by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in 1979, African-Americans made up 23.9 percent of the nation’s manufacturing workers, who numbered about 19.4 million. That comes out to more than 4.6 million jobs that paid what are now called family wages.

As of 2013 – the Labor Department’s last comprehensive look at the situation – blacks comprised 8.8 percent of the nation’s 10.3 million manufacturing jobs. That’s only a little over 906,000 manufacturing positions. The employment massacre revealed here updates findings from eminent scholars such as Harvard’s William Julius Wilson that the disappearance of good jobs in African-American communities since the 1970s explains much of the poverty and related social problems they’ve suffered.

Not that there hasn’t been a silver-lining, though, to Meeks’ race-baiting. In using such mud-slinging to rally support for fast track and the TPP, he’s implicitly confessing to his CBC colleagues that they shouldn’t pay much attention to the economic case made for Mr. Obama’s trade agenda. In the process, of course, he’s telling the rest of us that we shouldn’t, either.