The GOP continues transforming into a populist party

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119144942897748150.html?mod=hpp_us_editors_picks
   
Republicans
Grow Skeptical
On Free Trade
By JOHN HARWOOD
October 4, 2007; Page A1

WASHINGTON -- By a nearly two-to-one margin, Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals could face high hurdles under a new president.
MORE
 
[Go to poll]
• See poll results (Adobe Acrobat required)
• Drilling Down: How support for Giuliani, Thompson and the rest of the field varies by age, gender and other factors.
• Deal Journal: Open Season on American Companies

The sign of broadening resistance to globalization came in a new Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll that showed a fraying of Republican Party orthodoxy on the economy. While 60% of respondents said they want the next president and Congress to continue cutting taxes, 32% said it's time for some tax increases on the wealthiest Americans to reduce the budget deficit and pay for health care.

Six in 10 Republicans in the poll agreed with a statement that free trade has been bad for the U.S. and said they would agree with a Republican candidate who favored tougher regulations to limit foreign imports. That represents a challenge for Republican candidates who generally echo Mr. Bush's calls for continued trade expansion, and reflects a substantial shift in sentiment from eight years ago.

"It's a lot harder to sell the free-trade message to Republicans," said Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who conducts the Journal/NBC poll with Democratic counterpart Peter Hart. The poll comes ahead of the Oct. 9 Republican presidential debate in Michigan sponsored by the Journal and the CNBC and MSNBC television networks.

The leading Republican candidates are still trying to promote free trade. "Our philosophy has to be not how many protectionist measures can we put in place, but how do we invent new things to sell" abroad, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said in a recent interview. "That's the view of the future. What [protectionists] are trying to do is lock in the inadequacies of the past."

Such a stance is sure to face a challenge in the 2008 general election. Though President Bill Clinton famously steered the Democratic Party toward a less-protectionist bent and promoted the North American Free Trade Agreement, his wife and the current Democratic front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton, has adopted more skeptical rhetoric. Mrs. Clinton has come out against a U.S. trade deal with South Korea.

Other leading Democrats have been harshly critical of trade expansion, pleasing their party's labor-union backers. In a March 2007 WSJ/NBC poll, before recent scandals involving tainted imports, 54% of Democratic voters said free-trade agreements have hurt the U.S., compared with 21% who said they have helped.
[Image]
Take a closer look at how voters' age, gender, income and other factors are affecting their choices for the Republican nominee, according to the recent WSJ/NBC News poll.

While rank-and-file Democrats have long blasted the impact of trade on American jobs, slipping support among Republicans represents a fresh warning sign for free-market conservatives and American companies such as manufacturers and financial firms that benefit from markets opening abroad.

With voters provoked for years by such figures as Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot, "there's been a steady erosion in Republican support for free trade," says former Rep. Vin Weber, now an adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

One fresh indication of the party's ideological crosswinds: Presidential candidate Ron Paul of Texas, who opposes the Iraq war and calls free-trade deals "a threat to our independence as a nation," announced yesterday that he raised $5 million in third-quarter donations. That nearly matches what one-time front-runner John McCain is expected to report.
[Chart]

In a December 1999 Wall Street Journal-NBC poll, 37% of Republicans said trade deals had helped the U.S. and 31% said they had hurt, while 26% said they made no difference.

The new poll asked a broader but similar question. It posed two statements to voters. The first was, "Foreign trade has been good for the U.S. economy, because demand for U.S. products abroad has resulted in economic growth and jobs for Americans here at home and provided more choices for consumers."

The second was, "Foreign trade has been bad for the U.S. economy, because imports from abroad have reduced demand for American-made goods, cost jobs here at home, and produced potentially unsafe products."

Asked which statement came closer to their own view, 59% of Republicans named the second statement, while 32% pointed to the first.

Rocky Outlook

Such sentiment suggests a rocky outlook for trade expansion. Early in his term, Mr. Bush successfully promoted a number of new free-trade pacts, but the efforts have stalled, particularly after Democrats took control of Congress last November.

Even relatively small deals are facing resistance. While trade pacts with Peru and Panama have a strong chance of passing in the current congressional term, deals with South Korea and Colombia are in serious jeopardy. Some legislators believe South Korea isn't opening its market wide enough to American beef and autos.

'Fast Track'

Presidential "fast track" trade negotiating authority has lapsed. Without such authority, which requires Congress to take a single up-or-down vote on trade deals, the next president would have trouble pursuing large trade agreements, particularly the stalled global Doha Round.
[promo mccain]
AP
Presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) greeted cadets at Camden Military Academy in Camden, S.C., Wednesday.

Julie Kowal, 40 years old, who works in a medical lab and is raising five children in Omaha, Neb., said she worries that Midwestern producers face obstacles selling beef and autos abroad. "We give a lot more than we get," she said. "There's got to be a point where we say, 'Wait a minute.'"

Beyond trade, Republicans appear to be seeking a move away from the president. Asked in general terms, a 48% plurality of Republicans said the next president should "take a different approach" from Mr. Bush, while 38% wanted to continue on his path.

In the poll, Mr. Giuliani maintained his lead in the Republican field with support from 30% of respondents. Former Sen. Fred Thompson drew 23% in the survey, to 15% for Sen. John McCain, 10% for Mr. Romney and 4% for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. The telephone survey of 606 Republican voters, conducted Sept. 28-30, has a margin of error of four percentage points.

A clear majority of Republicans want more tax cuts, but among Republicans who identify themselves as moderate or liberal -- about one-third of the party's primary voters -- a 48% plurality favored some tax increase to fund health care and other priorities.

In part, the concern about trade reflected in the survey reflects the changing composition of the Republican electorate as social conservatives have grown in influence. In questions about a series of candidate stances, the only one drawing strong agreement from a majority of Republicans was opposition to abortion rights.

Post-9/11 security concerns have also displaced some of the traditional economic concerns of the Republican Party that Ronald Reagan reshaped a generation ago. Asked which issues will be most important in determining their vote, a 32% plurality cited national defense, while 25% cited domestic issues such as education and health care, and 23% cited moral issues. Ranking last, identified by just 17%, were economic issues such as taxes and trade.

John Pirtle, a 40-year-old Defense Department employee in Grand Rapids, Mich., said he drifted toward the Republican Party in large part because of his opposition to abortion, but doesn't agree with the free-trade views of leading candidates.

"We're seeing a lot of jobs farmed out," said Mr. Pirtle, whose father works for General Motors Corp. Rankled by reports of safety problems with Chinese imports, he added, "The stuff we are getting, looking at all the recalls, to be quite honest, it's junk."

Bush's Veto

Mr. Bush lately has sought to elevate the importance of economic issues. Yesterday he vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would expand funding for a children's-health program by $35 billion over five years. He slammed what he described as the Democrats' tax-and-spend approach during a speech in Lancaster, Pa.

Economic advisers to Republican presidential hopefuls acknowledge the safety scandals have made defending free trade more difficult. "Americans are right to be angered at companies that take shortcuts" in importing goods, said Larry Lindsey, once the top economic aide in the Bush White House and now an adviser to Mr. Thompson's presidential bid. "The next president has to promote free trade by playing hardball, and to be seen doing so."

In the Republican campaign so far, elevating populist trade concerns has been left to the long shots. "The most important thing a president needs to do is to make it clear that we're not going to continue to see jobs shipped overseas....and then watch as a CEO takes a $100 million bonus," Mr. Huckabee said at a debate earlier this year. "If Republicans don't stop it, we don't deserve to win in 2008."

[Ebowed]

This is not really a good thing.  I sympathize with the concept of 'fair trade', but too often protectionist politicians are hiding the fact that they support a complete isolationist policy, closing all markets, banning immigration, and requiring products to be 'America-made.'  All of these are very, very bad things.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

This is not really a good thing.  I sympathize with the concept of 'fair trade', but too often protectionist politicians are hiding the fact that they support a complete isolationist policy, closing all markets, banning immigration, and requiring products to be 'America-made.'  All of these are very, very bad things.

The GOP is turning into a mix of paleocon, catholic corporatist minus the catholicism and populist party with social attitudes that are downright reactionary.

[TheresNoMoney]

"Free trade" deals have destroyed the American middle class. Even Republicans have a hard time denying this.

[opebo]

"Free trade" deals have destroyed the American middle class. Even Republicans have a hard time denying this.

Of course this was their intention (and the intention of most Democrats). 

However there is little chance that either of the owners' parties will threaten profits (ie privileges).

[Colin]

More bad news from the Republican Party. In order to be competitive in the new global economy we need to support and expand free trade. By going back to the protectionist ways of prior generations we are reverse economic growth and the possibilities of a truely global market that has been created by technological progress. As Porce said alot of times a turn away from free trade also shows an inherent belief in isolationism which has always been an undercurrent of the American body politic. Still I think we would place ourselves in a very hypocritical and disadvantaged position if we began to close our economy off from the rest of the world, especially after supporting these procedures and free trade talks for years. I shouldn't really be suprised that economic populism, along with nativism and overall populism, should seep back into the GOP given the current state of the party.

[opebo]

More bad news from the Republican Party. In order to be competitive in the new global economy we need to support and expand free trade. By going back to the protectionist ways of prior generations we are reverse economic growth and the possibilities of a truely global market that has been created by technological progress.

Please consider, Colin, that not everyone wishes to 'compete' in this fashion, since for many in the lower orders that translates into making $6/hour instead of $15.  The 'competition' is in fact not between 'private interests', skills, etc., but between political orders.  Those political orders which provide more than a subsistence minimum for their serviles are undermined by those who outright enslave them with no rights at all - for example China.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As usual, you misunderstand the nature of 'free trade', but don't worry, there is no chance at all that either of the owners' parties will change their policies on this issue.

[Colin]

Ah opebo as patronizing as ever. What did your call girl not satisfy your needs last night? You seem slightly grumpy today.

[opebo]

Ah opebo as patronizing as ever. What did your call girl not satisfy your needs last night? You seem slightly grumpy today.

No, not grumpy.  My patronization is always intended to be friendly.  But I'd say the millions of american workers making around $10/hour or less nowadays instead of union wages are a bit grumpy.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Ah opebo as patronizing as ever. What did your call girl not satisfy your needs last night? You seem slightly grumpy today.

No, not grumpy.  My patronization is always intended to be friendly.  But I'd say the millions of american workers making around $10/hour or less nowadays instead of union wages are a bit grumpy.

But that's THEIR OWN FAULT.  They should be trying to compete and get ahead in a system and a process that has been defined FOR them... not trying to create a system that benefits them from the beginning.  How dare you be supportive of unions.  Corporate boardrooms are OBVIOUSLY better for the American middle class than the union halls.

[Jake]

"Free trade" deals have destroyed the American middle class. Even Republicans have a hard time denying this.

The alternative is as worse, if not more so. A non-competitive economy with no markets to sell to besides our own and no products to buy except our own.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

"Free trade" deals have destroyed the American middle class. Even Republicans have a hard time denying this.

Most of the laws of those deals once the small print was written were clearly designed to merely give fixed advantages to certain American companies. (See: My Antigua thread)

Of course there needs to some system of regulation regardless. But the move towards Nativism is something that should scare us all.

[Eraserhead]

Opebo has made some good points in this thread.

[Storebought]

More bad news from the Republican Party. In order to be competitive in the new global economy we need to support and expand free trade. By going back to the protectionist ways of prior generations we are reverse economic growth and the possibilities of a truely global market that has been created by technological progress. As Porce said alot of times a turn away from free trade also shows an inherent belief in isolationism which has always been an undercurrent of the American body politic. Still I think we would place ourselves in a very hypocritical and disadvantaged position if we began to close our economy off from the rest of the world, especially after supporting these procedures and free trade talks for years. I shouldn't really be suprised that economic populism, along with nativism and overall populism, should seep back into the GOP given the current state of the party.

Except that under current implementation of free trade, the only direction goods and services seem to be heading is towards the US from other countries, with our dollars constantly flowing outward with nothing to show for it, except a house full of Chinese garbage and a persistently negative trade deficit.

With exceptions like Boeing's jets and Caterpillar's machinery -- and Wall Street securities (I've just learned that financial services are the real service industry economists talk about when they say the US has a "service economy") -- the US grows or makes hardly a thing that the rest of the world wants to buy.

And even Wall Street is losing its competitive advantage in financial services to London. They don't need to worry with Sarbanes-Oxley.

The only part of our economy that hasn't been downsized, outsourced, or automated is construction and real estate, and that's because it's physically impossible to. But if you've been keeping up with the subprime mortgage debacle recently, you'll know that that sector has gone up the creek.

None of this means that I favor repeal of NAFTA or any other nuttiness like that. But it does mean that the US should consider diversifying its economy by reintroducing some native manufacturing (that's not simply the result of Japanese looking to outsource), since having 70% of our GDP come from credit-fueled consumer spending on foreign oil, food, and electronic consumables is a trifle unbalanced.

[Beet]

This debate is almost irrelevant now.

With 700 million people, Europe is destined to reclaim its place as the global economic superpower. It has finally recovered from World War I.

Second, with the "globalization of capital" as the New Republic put it last year, the rest of Eurasia stands to benefit as well- Russia, China, India, and the Middle East. Latin America and Africa are not far behind. It seems to matter little whether a government is more or less regulatory (or more or less politically free) -- the fact is that all developing nations, from Chavez's Venezuela to the flat tax Baltic states, are hooked into the global financial system and have benefitted from the liquidity and commodity booms. More than a boom really, more like an explosion.

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm a populist and my feelings towards the GOP are as cold as ever. Relatively-speaking, I can't see many economic sociopaths in the Democratic Party

Dave

[perdedor]

Perhaps. However, is the GOPs recent leaning to 'fair trade' a result of genuine care for the working man who is often harmed by "free" tarde...or is it a result of rampant xenophobia and hatred of the Chinese? Hard to say.

[Democratic Hawk]

Perhaps. However, is the GOPs recent leaning to 'fair trade' a result of genuine care for the working man who is often harmed by "free" tarde...or is it a result of rampant xenophobia and hatred of the Chinese? Hard to say.

I don't think many Republicans care one bit for the working man but they are adept at playing to the moral prejudices of the working man and have used wedge cultural issues to great electoral effect

BTW, just recently, you had former Labour prime minister Tony Blair warning presidential contenders, Republican and Democrat, not to close the door on free trade

The Hawk, of course, has long articulated a stick and carrot approach to free trade. No free trade without political liberalisation. The rationale being that as things become more liberal, Third World workers unite to form labor unions, which push for improved pay and conditions; thereby, in raising their standards they pose less a risk to diminishing ours. Economic liberalisation that way can reduce disparate differentials of wealth - the very source of most discontent in the world we live in

I must admit in my personal shopping habits, I myself, wherever possible, buy fair trade produce

Dave

[Alcon]

Perhaps. However, is the GOPs recent leaning to 'fair trade' a result of genuine care for the working man who is often harmed by "free" tarde...or is it a result of rampant xenophobia and hatred of the Chinese? Hard to say.

I think it's more the result of this:



The average Republican voter no longer looks like the bastard child of William Howard Taft and a Stepford wife.

And, across the boards, the only people who are big fans of the wealthy class are the wealthy class.

Cities have never had such uniformly hateful views of "free trade" as some would think, anyway.

[Person Man]

...so, what will happen to free-trading...which party will become the party of the markets if the GOP is more concerned about war, crime and punishment.

[2952-0-0]

^ Alcon, your assumption is false in a sense. You seem to imply that the rural population holds a lot of political weight, and that a large proportion of the population is rural. If you believe the Census Bureau's 2000 numbers, around 75% of the population lives in urban or suburban areas (and that proportion will only increase), so any politician who appeals to the rural demographic while ignoring issues of the urban population will only be chasing a dwindling prize.

Now that even white-collar professionals have reason to fear losing their jobs to India, it's probable that the middle class will also view free trade with a suspicious eye. If you combine this message with a hint of xenophobia to appeal to rednecks/fundies/etc, you could be able to forge a viable coalition. Of course, their policies will deepen any recession and social decline.

[MODU]

Cats, I think what Alcon might be pointing out is that most of the red area is the "working man" territory, to which Loser implies that the GOP is pandering to.  If they were pandering to it now, they wouldn't have voted infavor of the GOP in 2004.

[dead0man]

The Hawk, of course, has long articulated a stick and carrot approach to free trade. No free trade without political liberalisation. The rationale being that as things become more liberal, Third World workers unite to form labor unions, which push for improved pay and conditions; thereby, in raising their standards they pose less a risk to diminishing ours. Economic liberalisation that way can reduce disparate differentials of wealth - the very source of most discontent in the world we live in.

This is key to the future of free trade.  We can't have free trade as long as the countries we are trading with abuse their own populations.  We SHOULD NOT be trading with Saudi Arabia and China, period.  I don't care how much it would hurt our economy in the mean time, but buying their oil and their cheaply made crap is condoning all the horrible things the govt's of these countries are doing to their citizenry.

[opebo]

The Hawk, of course, has long articulated a stick and carrot approach to free trade. No free trade without political liberalisation. The rationale being that as things become more liberal, Third World workers unite to form labor unions, which push for improved pay and conditions; thereby, in raising their standards they pose less a risk to diminishing ours. Economic liberalisation that way can reduce disparate differentials of wealth - the very source of most discontent in the world we live in.

This is key to the future of free trade.  We can't have free trade as long as the countries we are trading with abuse their own populations.  We SHOULD NOT be trading with Saudi Arabia and China, period.  I don't care how much it would hurt our economy in the mean time, but buying their oil and their cheaply made crap is condoning all the horrible things the govt's of these countries are doing to their citizenry.

I hate to break it to you, but this is precisely the purpose of 'free trade' - to gain the benefits of enslavement elsewhere.  The owning classes prefer the deal they get when using Chinese to toil rather than, say Europeans, or even americans.  Imagine if we just had trade with countries that treated their workers well, like Denmark, Germany, or Belgium.  Where is the benefit to the owner in that?  He cannot enslave anyone any more than he already does here in america.  As for the oil issue, we set up those governments which abuse those citizenries simply to get the oil out with as much profit as possible for american oil companies.

'Free' trade is all about power and abuse - that is the whole point of it.

[StateBoiler]

Most people I know that self-describe as Republican thinks NAFTA and free trade is a bad deal.