Why are American "liberals" so enamored by protectionism?

[All Along The Watchtower]

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.

Thank the heavens that liberal icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt managed to see through the bullsh**t of the right-wing Republican protectionists of his day and led the successful effort to really open the US to global markets.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[FDR’s Comprehensive Approach to Freer Trade

Posted on AAD as well.

[anvi]

I personally don't think our problem is the trade deals themselves, as these are, despite local losses, beneficial overall and in the long run.  Our problem is that we don't develop enough new productive industries that can rely on domestic labor and create local multiplier effects (infrastructure renewal, new forms of mass transit, new energy production and distribution, etc.).  For every politician who is owned by workers in one sector who want their jobs protected, there is a politician owned by corporate moguls who want their businesses protected, and subsidized.  That's why, as in so many other realms of policy-making, we get false either-or choices instead of constructive both-and choices.

[Human]

Relevant:



The huge differences between the voters and the establishments of both parties is astounding.

The Republican establishment is staunchly pro-free trade. Most GOP congressmen are staunchly pro-TPP and pro-free trade. The GOP voters are significantly anti-free trade overall (as shown on the graph posted above).

On the flip side, the Democratic establishment tends to be anti-free trade. IIRC, most Democratic Party congressmen voted against TPP and are anti-free trade. A majority of Democratic voters are pro-free trade (as shown on the graph I posted above).

A majority of liberals aren't "enamored" by protectionism (as the graph above proves).

To answer the OP's question, a significant portion of liberals are enamored by protectionism due to anti-corporatism. Many liberals see free-trade as something that is destructive to the working-class of our country and only benefits large corporations.

I'm staunchly pro-free trade FTR.

[RaphaelDLG]

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.

[Mr. Smith]

Two reasons:

1. The working class and outsourcing prevention argument which has been explained over and over again.

2 (This usually stems more from the latte liberal crowd): Feel better about the source of where the goods come from because you know you didn't exploit any kids in overseas sweatshops [but that type of thinking usually comes from the kind of person with shiny new iWhatever]

a. And for those latte liberals trying to think even further outside the box, free-trade tends to be more environmentally disastrous thanks to transport pollution, and lax standards in outsourced places (which is of course why the outsourcing happens)

[Bojack Horseman]

Because I'm a pragmatist. Basic economics says that you're going to make your goods where it's cheapest to do so. This is why free trade is awesome and great if you're a third-world country, because developed nations like the United States can't compete with slave labor. It's vastly cheaper to outsource your manufacturing, call center, and most other entry-level/meat-and-potatoes jobs to some godawful country that most Americans can't pronounce, much less identify on a map, than to pay American workers to do the job. Now that makes for good publicity for companies like Discover who run ads like this and proudly proclaim that 100% of their customer service reps are US-based, but tell that to all those people that lost their jobs to somebody in a boiler room in India.

But above all, for me, it's because I've seen first-hand what free trade does to American jobs and American families having lived my entire life in Michigan. The decline in union membership that began during the Reagan administration combined with free trade deals and, to be fair, the intentional mass-exile of white people from Detroit by Coleman Young and his cronies all laid the groundwork for Detroit to become what it is today. NAFTA was the final death punch, as most GM manufacturing left Detroit and Flint and went to Oshawa, Ontario and to Mexico.

But the auto industry is only one example of how free trade has harmed my state. Stryker, the world's largest maker of medical devices, shipped all of its manufacturing from its headquarters in Kalamazoo to Tijuana, Mexico, where wages are 1/5 what they are across the border. Now that fact has turned Tijuana into the medical device capital of the world, conveniently located across the border from San Diego, California, where their products can be shipped to customers across the country. It's turned Tijuana, once a third-world-esque place where a house consisted of two cardboard shipping crates into a fast-developing city with plenty of jobs and industry.

Now that's obviously great for the people of Tijuana, but at whose expense did that come at? Hundreds, if not thousands, of people in Kalamazoo whose jobs were shipped to Mexico. I say that protectionism follows the same logic as locking your doors before you go to bed at night. You put up obstacles and barriers to stop greedy companies from shipping your jobs overseas for the same reason that you lock your doors to keep robbers and burglars out while you're sleeping. Signing trade deals like NAFTA and TPP is like leaving your front door standing open at night and putting a sign over the threshold that says "Free stuff."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There wasn't anything like "free trade" in FDR's time.

[Mr. Smith]

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

[Sbane]

Because I'm a pragmatist. Basic economics says that you're going to make your goods where it's cheapest to do so. This is why free trade is awesome and great if you're a third-world country, because developed nations like the United States can't compete with slave labor. It's vastly cheaper to outsource your manufacturing, call center, and most other entry-level/meat-and-potatoes jobs to some godawful country that most Americans can't pronounce, much less identify on a map, than to pay American workers to do the job. Now that makes for good publicity for companies like Discover who run ads like this and proudly proclaim that 100% of their customer service reps are US-based, but tell that to all those people that lost their jobs to somebody in a boiler room in India.

But above all, for me, it's because I've seen first-hand what free trade does to American jobs and American families having lived my entire life in Michigan. The decline in union membership that began during the Reagan administration combined with free trade deals and, to be fair, the intentional mass-exile of white people from Detroit by Coleman Young and his cronies all laid the groundwork for Detroit to become what it is today. NAFTA was the final death punch, as most GM manufacturing left Detroit and Flint and went to Oshawa, Ontario and to Mexico.

But the auto industry is only one example of how free trade has harmed my state. Stryker, the world's largest maker of medical devices, shipped all of its manufacturing from its headquarters in Kalamazoo to Tijuana, Mexico, where wages are 1/5 what they are across the border. Now that fact has turned Tijuana into the medical device capital of the world, conveniently located across the border from San Diego, California, where their products can be shipped to customers across the country. It's turned Tijuana, once a third-world-esque place where a house consisted of two cardboard shipping crates into a fast-developing city with plenty of jobs and industry.

Now that's obviously great for the people of Tijuana, but at whose expense did that come at? Hundreds, if not thousands, of people in Kalamazoo whose jobs were shipped to Mexico. I say that protectionism follows the same logic as locking your doors before you go to bed at night. You put up obstacles and barriers to stop greedy companies from shipping your jobs overseas for the same reason that you lock your doors to keep robbers and burglars out while you're sleeping. Signing trade deals like NAFTA and TPP is like leaving your front door standing open at night and putting a sign over the threshold that says "Free stuff."

Ugh, economics is not a zero sum game. For there to be winners, there don't necessarily have to be losers. Free trade has also created as many jobs, if not more, in the US than it has lost. Though to be fair those without college education probably get a rough deal while those with a college education or those in skilled trades get a better deal with free trade. And while there are areas that have been hurt by free trade, like Michigan, there are many other places in the US it has benefited. On balance, free trade is good for the USA. It may not be as good for the USA as it is for developing countries, but it has made the USA a better place to live for its citizens.

[RINO Tom]

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.

As for why liberals like protectionism, it's because protectionism is a short-sighted economic policy that helps a few working class and poor people stay afloat rather than actually helping them better their economic position and does all of this at the expense of the American business community and greater American economy as a whole.  Sorry, but that's right up you guys' alley, bro.

[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!

[ElectionsGuy]

As for why liberals like protectionism, it's because protectionism is a short-sighted economic policy that helps a few working class and poor people stay afloat rather than actually helping them better their economic position and does all of this at the expense of the American business community and greater American economy as a whole. 

Nailed it. As for conservatives, well, yeah. Its clear this issue now is an intraparty class division and a populist/establishment division, not a division between the parties.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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.

As for why liberals like protectionism, it's because protectionism is a short-sighted economic policy that helps a few working class and poor people stay afloat rather than actually helping them better their economic position and does all of this at the expense of the American business community and greater American economy as a whole.  Sorry, but that's right up you guys' alley, bro.

> Short sighted policy
> is a republican

[RINO Tom]

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.

As for why liberals like protectionism, it's because protectionism is a short-sighted economic policy that helps a few working class and poor people stay afloat rather than actually helping them better their economic position and does all of this at the expense of the American business community and greater American economy as a whole.  Sorry, but that's right up you guys' alley, bro.

> Short sighted policy
> is a republican

BURNED ME !!!!!!

[All Along The Watchtower]

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.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Liberals don't. Liberals looooove free trade.



But if you're asking why some populist dems do?

Because god help us if we care about working americans, I guess.

Now I'll admit. I *am * a nationalist. But if you're asking the government to betray its own citizens for some abstract notion of economic growth in another country, I seriously question your priorities.

[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?

[beaver2.0]

Because free trade is much worse.

[RaphaelDLG]

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.

[NerdyBohemian]

Because the jobs that were outsourced were usually unionized.


/end thread.

[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.

[Boston Bread]

Blacks and unions are disproportionally in industries that are hurt by free trade. As hispanics and white collars become a larger portion of the party, opposition to free trade declined, but revived in 2016 because of the populist surge.

[Santander]

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.

[All Along The Watchtower]

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.

To be fair to RINO Tom, a majority of college-educated voters going for Obama is a pretty poor measure of the overall partisan preferences (let alone, political views) of those voters. Let's be honest, Obama is exactly the kind of Democratic nominee who can appeal to the kinds of college-educated Republican voters who live in major metropolitan areas (especially in more liberal parts of the country, e.g. the Northeast and the SF Bay Area - not coincidentally, the ancestral homeland of the so-called "Rockefeller Republicans" ) and who are at the very least, somewhat wary of contemporary American social conservatism (specifically the kind that is explicitly political - i.e. the Religious Right), if they're not outright liberal on sociocultural issues (which many of them are, in fact). However, they are still quite Republican in downballot races, and are certainly still more likely to vote GOP at the presidential level if the Republican ticket has a Romney or a Ryan on it instead of a Palin or (God Forbid) a Trump.

These are the kinds of people who have historically identified with the Republican Party because the Republicans are the party of the wealthier classes (which is still pretty true FTR, though the Democrats have in recent years gotten better at attracting wealthier voters, particularly in presidential elections - hence, Obama winning over a significant number of "Rockefeller Republican" voters ) and the related view that the Republican Party has been - for as long as they can remember - the "responsible" party. If you notice, this is very similar to the upper class belief in the UK that the Tories are the "natural party of government." In other words, these are the people who have always though that politics should be a matter of responsible governance by an enlightened class that is inspired by a paternalistic view of public service and stewardship of the US government. This class tends to shun the political "extremes" and populist grassroots movements of both Left and Right; hence, they have been deeply disturbed by the right-wing populist turn of the Republican Party in recent years, with the Trump campaign being their ultimate nightmare scenario for the party that they have historically identified with.

I think that it is harder to notice this demographic both because their influence within the GOP has been declining and they tend to be clustered in major metropolitan areas in districts and regions that have become more and more Democratic in recent decades. Furthermore, as I previously stated these voters are becoming ever more alienated from the modern Republican Party in presidential elections. Thus, these highly affluent and educated Republicans don't really have a political home anymore - at  least, at the national level.

Finally, it is important to note that the college-educated population in the US has an increasing proportion of single women, young people, members of the LGBT community, and ethnic/racial minorities - all groups that are obviously considerably more liberal than average. Consequently, the Democratic Party's current advantage with college-educated voters is very much driven by these demographics. Unfortunately for Democrats, many of these voters tend to vote mainly in presidential elections and thus, are underrepresented in downballot races. - which of course, drives up Republican margins in those races.

Anyway, this turned to out be quite an effortpost.

[Mr. Jew]

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.

To be fair to RINO Tom, a majority of college-educated voters going for Obama is a pretty poor measure of the overall partisan preferences (let alone, political views) of those voters. Let's be honest, Obama is exactly the kind of Democratic nominee who can appeal to the kinds of college-educated Republican voters who live in major metropolitan areas (especially in more liberal parts of the country, e.g. the Northeast and the SF Bay Area - not coincidentally, the ancestral homeland of the so-called "Rockefeller Republicans" ) and who are at the very least, somewhat wary of contemporary American social conservatism (specifically the kind that is explicitly political - i.e. the Religious Right), if they're not outright liberal on sociocultural issues (which many of them are, in fact). However, they are still quite Republican in downballot races, and are certainly still more likely to vote GOP at the presidential level if the Republican ticket has a Romney or a Ryan on it instead of a Palin or (God Forbid) a Trump.

These are the kinds of people who have historically identified with the Republican Party because the Republicans are the party of the wealthier classes (which is still pretty true FTR, though the Democrats have in recent years gotten better at attracting wealthier voters, particularly in presidential elections - hence, Obama winning over a significant number of "Rockefeller Republican" voters ) and the related view that the Republican Party has been - for as long as they can remember - the "responsible" party. If you notice, this is very similar to the upper class belief in the UK that the Tories are the "natural party of government." In other words, these are the people who have always though that politics should be a matter of responsible governance by an enlightened class that is inspired by a paternalistic view of public service and stewardship of the US government. This class tends to shun the political "extremes" and populist grassroots movements of both Left and Right; hence, they have been deeply disturbed by the right-wing populist turn of the Republican Party in recent years, with the Trump campaign being their ultimate nightmare scenario for the party that they have historically identified with.

I think that it is harder to notice this demographic both because their influence within the GOP has been declining and they tend to be clustered in major metropolitan areas in districts and regions that have become more and more Democratic in recent decades. Furthermore, as I previously stated these voters are becoming ever more alienated from the modern Republican Party in presidential elections. Thus, these highly affluent and educated Republicans don't really have a political home anymore - at  least, at the national level.

Finally, it is important to note that the college-educated population in the US has an increasing proportion of single women, young people, members of the LGBT community, and ethnic/racial minorities - all groups that are obviously considerably more liberal than average. Consequently, the Democratic Party's current advantage with college-educated voters is very much driven by these demographics. Unfortunately for Democrats, many of these voters tend to vote mainly in presidential elections and thus, are underrepresented in downballot races. - which of course, drives up Republican margins in those races.

Anyway, this turned to out be quite an effortpost.

Yes the undue praise of the culture of the "Great Men" explains a great deal of what is wrong with modern liberalism.  Not too long ago these sorts would have been quite rightly criticized by liberal Democrats for their outright elitism and excessive wealth.  Now?  Idiot hacks like Rachel Maddow glow ecstatically about great "liberal Republicans" like Richard American Hitler Nixon and Nelson Jim Crow Part 2 Rockefeller.

No wonder our party has become a huge joke.  We have ignorant morons who praise NIXON.  NIXON.