« More on Primaries | Main | New Data »
February 07, 2004
Free Flowing Free Trade
An amusing article in Slate gives advice to wine drinkers on how to vote in the general election.
It unintentionally makes a pretty interesting point - many Democratic voters (liberal cultural elites) have a lot to gain from free trade and not much to lose. Of course, many Republican voters (and Democratic ones) have much to lose (their jobs) and not much to gain (maybe $3,000 a year saved at Wal Mart and the grocery store).
Many of the culturally conservative lower middle class voters who have trended Republican (not just in the South) since the 1960's are being personally hurt by the economic policies generally embraced by Republicans and the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
Suburban dwellers, on the other hand, who were once solidly Republican, are trending Democratic and benefit in myriad ways from free trade -- goods are cheaper at Target, more luxury wines should be availalbe, etc.
Now, Democrats have a choice: Go back on the Clinton legacy of free trade and try to win the votes of culturally conservative voters whose economic security has been damaged by economic conservativism. Or, embrace Clinton's forward thinking, knowing that the number of factory workers in the previous example are shrinking every year while the professional middle class should grow.
Ultimately, I would prefer the latter -- embracing free trade. Kerry seems to have the preferable stance compared to Edwards, but I do think that Edwards embrace of protectionism is more empathy than anything else, and he would ultimately continue to move the country forward, as Clinton did, while seeking out solutions to trade problems, such as steel tariffs, that would try to level the playing field (bailout of pension problems) so that the industry could be given a fresh start to have one last chance at competing with foreign firms instead of reactionary tariffs that hurt the world economy overall.
In Edwards' defense, 2004 provides a unique opportunity to be both free trade and protectionist. Bush's record on trade is so bad that Clinton's is golden in comparison and even a hard-line protectionist like Gephardt should be preferable to all but the most ideological conservatives. Edwards' free trade position would be preferable to Bush's, but instead of using protectionism that hurts other countries and the global economy as a whole, it would be pretty easy to use repeal of upper-tier tax cuts to achieve similar goals (worker retraining, pension socialization, etc).
In fact, Bush's economic record is so bad and the circumstances are so unique that, for at least one election cycle, the right kind of candidate may be able to convert socially conservative poor voters to vote their economic interests instead of their moralistic ones. It's been a fantasy for some time among Democrats that something like this would happen at least once. If you read this blog and you're planning to vote based on electability, please take this into account and ask yourself which candidate can actually appeal to these voters. Hint: It takes more than just reminding them that they aren't voting their interests. They already know that.
Posted by Chris at February 7, 2004 06:34 PM
Comments
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)