Why are American "liberals" so enamored by protectionism?

[IceSpear]

Why not, considering that it is just not true? Don't let RINO Tom fool you with his posturing - Obama won the college-educated vote both times. Everyone wants to pretend like their side is "smarter" - as in most issues (climate change, voter suppression, etc.), actual statistics back up our side.

RINO Tom desperately clings to this romantic notion that the GOP is a bourgeois party primarily made up of North Shore Episcopalians and their counterparts around the country, when the party's footsoldiers have long been white Evangelicals and the culturally conservative working-class, who he sees as Jesus freaks and racists who belong in the Democratic Party.

So true!

Tom really needs to get with the program and realize that the GOP is the party of West Virginia, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, and Santander, not himself and Mark Kirk.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Not to suggest that Evangelicals and cultural conservative working class folks are bad people, but yeah the Democrats are much more the party of well-educated suburbanites than the GOP.

[ag]

Also, one could argue that free-trade is imperialistic and colonial and leads to lots of unnecessary wars.

One could also argue that the Sun rizes in the West. You could argue that. It would, merely, be at odds with empirical observations.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Also, one could argue that free-trade is imperialistic and colonial and leads to lots of unnecessary wars.

The only way you can argue this case is if you are suggesting that developing countries should be allowed to build up infant industries through tariffs (and indeed, I can see a case for a hypothetical empowered African Union placing in tariffs to try and create a native industry in that impoverished continent), but in that case developed countries have no defense.

[Bismarck]

Not to suggest that Evangelicals and cultural conservative working class folks are bad people, but yeah the Democrats are much more the party of well-educated suburbanites than the GOP.

In Oregon and Massachusetts maybe? Hamilton county Indiana has more than half adults with degrees, a median family income of like 100 k and is about 70 % R. Democrats may win the wealthy people in the cities and a few liberal enclaves but that is certainly not true in most of the country.

[Kingpoleon]

I'll have to re-evaluate your intelligence if you're saying being a protectionist in the 1930s is the same as being one today.

Precisely. When most nations are protectionist, it's very stupid to not be. However, on the Earth today, the more global your national economy, the bigger it can be and the more affiliations, commerce, and business. The bigger your economy and its connections, the more stable it is.

In the 1930s and 1940s, the main reason for free trade was so that allies relied more upon each other. It encouraged one's allies to stay allies and not break ties that would hurt their own economy.

As for economics not being a zero sum game, it is true that there don't have to be losers just because there are winners. However, it is equally true that there don't have to be winners just because there are losers.

[RINO Tom]

The premise is faulty.  Liberals in America (certainly the elected democratic pols) are the possibly least protectionist and most economically right-wing of all of the OECD countries.

Protectionism is most popular among conservatives in America because there's a significant part of the coalition that is older and uneducated and therefore gets screwed the hardest by trade agreements.  Contrast with the upper middle class educated professionals that are a significant part of the Democratic base.

News to me and exit polls everywhere!

A sizable majority of voters with graduate degrees vote Democratic these days.

That by no means exclusively indicates a high income (finance majors with bachelor's degrees are going to make a lot more than education majors with a PhD), and it ignores the fact that college graduates as a whole still voted substantially Republican in 2014.  Let's not even get into the very, very clear evidence that Republican voting and a higher income are directly linked.

Affluent and educated people are AT LEAST as much of a part of the GOP's coalition as they are to the Democrats' coalition.  That should be beyond debate, but I guess it's not?

Yeah, I don't dispute that Rs are more likely to hold college degrees and be a little wealthier (the fact that they are all white helps in both of these regards).  But Democrats are more likely to hold postgraduate degrees, and that group of postgraduates in combination with the gigantic portion of the democratic party that is more identity-politics motivated than class-motivated has, I think, substantially if not totally neutered the class angle in the Democratic party in the past few decades.

Which is why in opinion polls Democratic voters (not really Democratic politicians) tend to favor protectionism less than the Republicans.

Why not, considering that it is just not true? Don't let RINO Tom fool you with his posturing - Obama won the college-educated vote both times. Everyone wants to pretend like their side is "smarter" - as in most issues (climate change, voter suppression, etc.), actual statistics back up our side.

LOL, you're ridiculous.  I'm not fooling or posturing anyone.  Mitt Romney won 51% of college graduates.  Republicans won college graduates HANDILY in 2010 and 2014.  Are these the statistics you're speaking of?

Democrats win postgrads, but they also win over 60% of high school dropouts.  To say statistics back up the claim that Democrats are "smarter" is holy-shlt-type stupid.

[RINO Tom]

Why not, considering that it is just not true? Don't let RINO Tom fool you with his posturing - Obama won the college-educated vote both times. Everyone wants to pretend like their side is "smarter" - as in most issues (climate change, voter suppression, etc.), actual statistics back up our side.

RINO Tom desperately clings to this romantic notion that the GOP is a bourgeois party primarily made up of North Shore Episcopalians and their counterparts around the country, when the party's footsoldiers have long been white Evangelicals and the culturally conservative working-class, who he sees as Jesus freaks and racists who belong in the Democratic Party.

Of course, Democrats aren't correct when they imply that they're the smarter party, either. They may possess more degrees by accident of demographics, but they are the same people who perpetuate dangerous, anti-intellectual ideas in the left-wing echo chambers of academia.

Let's dispel with this fiction that your education level or income makes you "smart", especially in the context of politics.

Seriously, what on Earth are you talking about?  You continue to get worse, somehow.  No successful political party is PRIMARILY made up of elites.  And I've never claimed it was.

[RINO Tom]

Not to suggest that Evangelicals and cultural conservative working class folks are bad people, but yeah the Democrats are much more the party of well-educated suburbanites than the GOP.

2010
$100,000 and up: 57%-43% GOP
College Educated: 58%-42% GOP
Suburban: 56%-44% GOP

2012
$100,000 and up: 54%-44% Romney
College Educated: 51%-47% Romney
Suburban: 50%-48% Romney

2014
$100,000 and up: 54%-44% GOP
College Educated: 57%-41% GOP
Suburban: 55%-43% GOP

As our friend Mr. Illini says, the stats don't lie.  You are literally just wrong, dude.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Not to suggest that Evangelicals and cultural conservative working class folks are bad people, but yeah the Democrats are much more the party of well-educated suburbanites than the GOP.

2010
$100,000 and up: 57%-43% GOP
College Educated: 58%-42% GOP
Suburban: 56%-44% GOP

2012
$100,000 and up: 54%-44% Romney
College Educated: 51%-47% Romney
Suburban: 50%-48% Romney

2014
$100,000 and up: 54%-44% GOP
College Educated: 57%-41% GOP
Suburban: 55%-43% GOP

As our friend Mr. Illini says, the stats don't lie.  You are literally just wrong, dude.

Fair enough! It does seem to be a little bit different in New England, where you get a lot of affluent suburban liberal types. IMHO makes the party worse.

In fact, there's an academic history of suburban MA to this effect called "Don't Blame Us!"

[IceSpear]

I'll just leave this here...

[RINO Tom]

I'll just leave this here...

No one said this wouldn't be an ABNORMAL election (which means, in case you weren't sure, different than the usual and default), which it will be.

It is indeed a strange political climate where self-described liberals are legitimately proud that the "masses" aren't on their side.  Kind of antithetical to the whole ideology.

[IceSpear]

Well, the "masses" would be on her side, considering she's winning in a landslide in that poll.

[RINO Tom]

Well, the "masses" would be on her side, considering she's winning in a landslide in that poll.

I'm just saying, liberalism by its very nature is defined by helping the less fortunate.  Doesn't seem like the type of group that'd gloat about winning the votes of the most fortunate.

[Mr. Illini]

The premise is faulty.  Liberals in America (certainly the elected democratic pols) are the possibly least protectionist and most economically right-wing of all of the OECD countries.

Protectionism is most popular among conservatives in America because there's a significant part of the coalition that is older and uneducated and therefore gets screwed the hardest by trade agreements.  Contrast with the upper middle class educated professionals that are a significant part of the Democratic base.

News to me and exit polls everywhere!

A sizable majority of voters with graduate degrees vote Democratic these days.

That by no means exclusively indicates a high income (finance majors with bachelor's degrees are going to make a lot more than education majors with a PhD), and it ignores the fact that college graduates as a whole still voted substantially Republican in 2014.  Let's not even get into the very, very clear evidence that Republican voting and a higher income are directly linked.

Affluent and educated people are AT LEAST as much of a part of the GOP's coalition as they are to the Democrats' coalition.  That should be beyond debate, but I guess it's not?

Yeah, I don't dispute that Rs are more likely to hold college degrees and be a little wealthier (the fact that they are all white helps in both of these regards).  But Democrats are more likely to hold postgraduate degrees, and that group of postgraduates in combination with the gigantic portion of the democratic party that is more identity-politics motivated than class-motivated has, I think, substantially if not totally neutered the class angle in the Democratic party in the past few decades.

Which is why in opinion polls Democratic voters (not really Democratic politicians) tend to favor protectionism less than the Republicans.

Why not, considering that it is just not true? Don't let RINO Tom fool you with his posturing - Obama won the college-educated vote both times. Everyone wants to pretend like their side is "smarter" - as in most issues (climate change, voter suppression, etc.), actual statistics back up our side.

LOL, you're ridiculous.  I'm not fooling or posturing anyone.  Mitt Romney won 51% of college graduates.  Republicans won college graduates HANDILY in 2010 and 2014.  Are these the statistics you're speaking of?

Democrats win postgrads, but they also win over 60% of high school dropouts.  To say statistics back up the claim that Democrats are "smarter" is holy-shlt-type stupid.

I'm ridiculous - yet you are the one measuring "college educated individuals" by taking only those with Bachelor's degrees. If undergraduate and postgraduates are added, Obama won the electorate. You're very right - the numbers do not lie.

[RINO Tom]

The premise is faulty.  Liberals in America (certainly the elected democratic pols) are the possibly least protectionist and most economically right-wing of all of the OECD countries.

Protectionism is most popular among conservatives in America because there's a significant part of the coalition that is older and uneducated and therefore gets screwed the hardest by trade agreements.  Contrast with the upper middle class educated professionals that are a significant part of the Democratic base.

News to me and exit polls everywhere!

A sizable majority of voters with graduate degrees vote Democratic these days.

That by no means exclusively indicates a high income (finance majors with bachelor's degrees are going to make a lot more than education majors with a PhD), and it ignores the fact that college graduates as a whole still voted substantially Republican in 2014.  Let's not even get into the very, very clear evidence that Republican voting and a higher income are directly linked.

Affluent and educated people are AT LEAST as much of a part of the GOP's coalition as they are to the Democrats' coalition.  That should be beyond debate, but I guess it's not?

Yeah, I don't dispute that Rs are more likely to hold college degrees and be a little wealthier (the fact that they are all white helps in both of these regards).  But Democrats are more likely to hold postgraduate degrees, and that group of postgraduates in combination with the gigantic portion of the democratic party that is more identity-politics motivated than class-motivated has, I think, substantially if not totally neutered the class angle in the Democratic party in the past few decades.

Which is why in opinion polls Democratic voters (not really Democratic politicians) tend to favor protectionism less than the Republicans.

Why not, considering that it is just not true? Don't let RINO Tom fool you with his posturing - Obama won the college-educated vote both times. Everyone wants to pretend like their side is "smarter" - as in most issues (climate change, voter suppression, etc.), actual statistics back up our side.

LOL, you're ridiculous.  I'm not fooling or posturing anyone.  Mitt Romney won 51% of college graduates.  Republicans won college graduates HANDILY in 2010 and 2014.  Are these the statistics you're speaking of?

Democrats win postgrads, but they also win over 60% of high school dropouts.  To say statistics back up the claim that Democrats are "smarter" is holy-shlt-type stupid.

I'm ridiculous - yet you are the one measuring "college educated individuals" by taking only those with Bachelor's degrees. If undergraduate and postgraduates are added, Obama won the electorate. You're very right - the numbers do not lie.

Are you seriously using millennials' heavy Democratic lean and the most racially diverse college-aged population in history to try to draw a correlation between being college educated and being a Democrat?!  Surely, you're familiar with lurking variables.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Wow... there's a lot of ugly in this thread and I'm usually the one being called an elitist.

Yikes.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yeah this thread is insane. "My party is better than yours because there are less plebs!!!"

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yeah this thread is insane. "My party is better than yours because there are less plebs!!!"

Time to permaban America imo

[RINO Tom]

Yeah this thread is insane. "My party is better than yours because there are less plebs!!!"

For my part, I was simply correcting what I believed to be a falsehood.  I'm not saying one group is better than the other.

[RFayette]

With respect to this thread, both parties are in flux (obviously the GOP far moreso), so I'd wager we don't really know what the composition of the parties will look like in 20 years or what the GOP will stand for (there is a non-negligible chance the GOP will be pretty progressive economically). 

[Mr. Illini]

The premise is faulty.  Liberals in America (certainly the elected democratic pols) are the possibly least protectionist and most economically right-wing of all of the OECD countries.

Protectionism is most popular among conservatives in America because there's a significant part of the coalition that is older and uneducated and therefore gets screwed the hardest by trade agreements.  Contrast with the upper middle class educated professionals that are a significant part of the Democratic base.

News to me and exit polls everywhere!

A sizable majority of voters with graduate degrees vote Democratic these days.

That by no means exclusively indicates a high income (finance majors with bachelor's degrees are going to make a lot more than education majors with a PhD), and it ignores the fact that college graduates as a whole still voted substantially Republican in 2014.  Let's not even get into the very, very clear evidence that Republican voting and a higher income are directly linked.

Affluent and educated people are AT LEAST as much of a part of the GOP's coalition as they are to the Democrats' coalition.  That should be beyond debate, but I guess it's not?

Yeah, I don't dispute that Rs are more likely to hold college degrees and be a little wealthier (the fact that they are all white helps in both of these regards).  But Democrats are more likely to hold postgraduate degrees, and that group of postgraduates in combination with the gigantic portion of the democratic party that is more identity-politics motivated than class-motivated has, I think, substantially if not totally neutered the class angle in the Democratic party in the past few decades.

Which is why in opinion polls Democratic voters (not really Democratic politicians) tend to favor protectionism less than the Republicans.

Why not, considering that it is just not true? Don't let RINO Tom fool you with his posturing - Obama won the college-educated vote both times. Everyone wants to pretend like their side is "smarter" - as in most issues (climate change, voter suppression, etc.), actual statistics back up our side.

LOL, you're ridiculous.  I'm not fooling or posturing anyone.  Mitt Romney won 51% of college graduates.  Republicans won college graduates HANDILY in 2010 and 2014.  Are these the statistics you're speaking of?

Democrats win postgrads, but they also win over 60% of high school dropouts.  To say statistics back up the claim that Democrats are "smarter" is holy-shlt-type stupid.

I'm ridiculous - yet you are the one measuring "college educated individuals" by taking only those with Bachelor's degrees. If undergraduate and postgraduates are added, Obama won the electorate. You're very right - the numbers do not lie.

Are you seriously using millennials' heavy Democratic lean and the most racially diverse college-aged population in history to try to draw a correlation between being college educated and being a Democrat?!  Surely, you're familiar with lurking variables.

Ah, so you'd rather exclude educated minorities and youth from the discussion to get the statistic that you would like. I'm very pleased with the emerging college-educated, racially and ethnically diverse Democratic majority.

[RINO Tom]

The premise is faulty.  Liberals in America (certainly the elected democratic pols) are the possibly least protectionist and most economically right-wing of all of the OECD countries.

Protectionism is most popular among conservatives in America because there's a significant part of the coalition that is older and uneducated and therefore gets screwed the hardest by trade agreements.  Contrast with the upper middle class educated professionals that are a significant part of the Democratic base.

News to me and exit polls everywhere!

A sizable majority of voters with graduate degrees vote Democratic these days.

That by no means exclusively indicates a high income (finance majors with bachelor's degrees are going to make a lot more than education majors with a PhD), and it ignores the fact that college graduates as a whole still voted substantially Republican in 2014.  Let's not even get into the very, very clear evidence that Republican voting and a higher income are directly linked.

Affluent and educated people are AT LEAST as much of a part of the GOP's coalition as they are to the Democrats' coalition.  That should be beyond debate, but I guess it's not?

Yeah, I don't dispute that Rs are more likely to hold college degrees and be a little wealthier (the fact that they are all white helps in both of these regards).  But Democrats are more likely to hold postgraduate degrees, and that group of postgraduates in combination with the gigantic portion of the democratic party that is more identity-politics motivated than class-motivated has, I think, substantially if not totally neutered the class angle in the Democratic party in the past few decades.

Which is why in opinion polls Democratic voters (not really Democratic politicians) tend to favor protectionism less than the Republicans.

Why not, considering that it is just not true? Don't let RINO Tom fool you with his posturing - Obama won the college-educated vote both times. Everyone wants to pretend like their side is "smarter" - as in most issues (climate change, voter suppression, etc.), actual statistics back up our side.

LOL, you're ridiculous.  I'm not fooling or posturing anyone.  Mitt Romney won 51% of college graduates.  Republicans won college graduates HANDILY in 2010 and 2014.  Are these the statistics you're speaking of?

Democrats win postgrads, but they also win over 60% of high school dropouts.  To say statistics back up the claim that Democrats are "smarter" is holy-shlt-type stupid.

I'm ridiculous - yet you are the one measuring "college educated individuals" by taking only those with Bachelor's degrees. If undergraduate and postgraduates are added, Obama won the electorate. You're very right - the numbers do not lie.

Are you seriously using millennials' heavy Democratic lean and the most racially diverse college-aged population in history to try to draw a correlation between being college educated and being a Democrat?!  Surely, you're familiar with lurking variables.

Ah, so you'd rather exclude educated minorities and youth from the discussion to get the statistic that you would like. I'm very pleased with the emerging college-educated, racially and ethnically diverse Democratic majority.

Don't be obtuse.  I'm not excluding anyone, I'm stating that it is not education in and of itself that lends itself to more Democratic voting, and I think you know that.

As for your last sentence, LOL.  Believe what you'd like, buddy.

[RINO Tom]

Just for clarification, it isn't just American "liberals" Conservatives used to be very supportive of it. In fact, many traditional small government proponents were in favor of protectionism. It's rooted in the America Great Again philosophy.

Pretty simple, really: when American businesses were asking for and benefiting from protectionism, conservatives argued for such policies.  When businesses start pushing for free trade, conservatives supported free trade.  The motive is much more important than the means used.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

It's literally the most nationalistic, xenophobic economic policy that we have ever had the misfortune of experiencing. It is the ultimate punishment for consumers (i.e. all Americans, but especially those who can't afford to buy things at higher prices - i.e. the working people and the poor whom liberals/progressives/the Left say they care about) and the ultimate godsend for American capitalists. Furthermore, it literally cuts the United States off from the global economy which we all benefit from to one extent or the other.

Pretty much nothing you posted is true.  If you have wage, safety, and environmental standards your costs of production can be higher.  It does you no good to then allow importation of cheap hazardous goods from countries with no standards.  The goods may cost more with some trade barriers in place but you will also be able to keep your workers' wages up.

I think what people on the left want is certain minimal standards everywhere.  They want better wages for workers in third world countries.  What they don't want is a global race to the bottom.  If anyone has seen the old textile towns of New England and compares them to the slums in Bangladesh where clothes are now made they will understand why there is such an outcry about globalization.