Democrats Dont Realize Theyre the Free Trade Party

[comradebillyboy]

Ron Brownstein: “This silence speaks volumes about the Democrats’ inability, or unwillingness, to recognize the evolving nature of the party’s demographic and geographic base. While many Democrats still think of the party as the home of blue-collar industrial regions hostile to trade, in fact, the party is now centered in the major metropolitan areas that are integrated into global markets and at the forefront of the transition into the information-age, digital economy. The most telling measure of that shift: while Hillary Clinton won fewer than one-sixth of America’s counties in 2016, her counties accounted for nearly 60 percent of all US exports, according to calculations by the Metropolitan Policy Program at the center-left Brookings Institution.”

“Yet few Democrats are articulating the interest of those areas in the tariff debate — either because they share the President’s long-standing suspicion of free trade, or because they fear antagonizing the labor unions who promote protectionist policies as well."

https://politicalwire.com/2018/03/13/democrats-dont-realize-theyre-the-free-trade-party/

I'll admit to being a globalist free trader.

[BeyondGeography]

1. There is a big split on this

Rust belters like Sens. Brown and Casey, plus the guy who would replace Pelosi as Speaker, are siding with Trump on tariffs. Plus Conor Lamb, who everyone is excited about. Free trade as a litmus test for Dems isn’t happening anytime soon, nor should it.

[comradebillyboy]

3. Indeed there is. That's why I posted this

to get a discussion on an issue rather than personalities.

I am a former union member so I am not hostile to unions, but I think that the AFL-CIO positions on trade are badly out of tune in the modern world. It seems to me the trade agreements were meant to address the fact that businesses were moving overseas to get cheap labor as opposed to the reason for it.

[BeyondGeography]

5. I agree, but then there is the business of getting elected

and the areas of the country where protectionism is resonating are the same places that cost us the 2016 election.

My hope is that the havoc that tariffs create for our trading partners will ultimately give Dems the leverage to negotiate better deals when they are in a position to do so and that will help take some of the appeal out of the protectionist position. It's a risky game because the numbers suggest that tariffs will cause a net loss of jobs here and that will cancel out any "leverage" that we might gain. Then there is the problem that Brownstein is getting at, what do Democrats stand for? But if we stand alongside Paul Ryan on trade, how does that weaken the "both parties are the same" problem that plagues us with many voters in economically-challenged areas? Like the 8.4 million who switched from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016, e.g.

I don't have the answers to that one, but this issue obviously points out the need to sharpen our overall economic message and to make that our primary focus as a party.

[comradebillyboy]

6. Messaging is a big problem. Complexity and nuance

aren't well recieved by most people.

[moondust]

2. "democracy"

implies "majority rule." The vast majority (85%) of Americans now live in urban areas.

That may be something that rural areas don't quite understand or don't want to face. Nevertheless, even if they feel ignored, I think in most cases rural areas will benefit more from the more egalitarian policies of Democrats than from neoliberal Republican policies that only serve the rich.

[comradebillyboy]

4. Big agriculture exports a lot of food.

The anti free trade movement and anti immigration movements, which are popular in rural America are hurting their prosperity.

[moondust]

7. Indeed.

There's a reason that the U.S. Ambassador to China is former Iowa Governor Terry Branstad.

May also explain why major agricultural importer Mexico is getting an exemption from the tariffs.