"More frightened than bigoted": Trumpism dominated by trade, not race

boing
105

The protectionist policies espoused by both Sanders and Trump are going to benefit the largely white American population at the expense of the non-white populations of other countries.

Is it only racism if one’s target is non-white people who live in America? I assume non-whites outside are fair game, at least if their economic interest threatens the economic interests of the largely white population in America.

Now of course, Sanders isn’t going after those foreigners because they aren’t white. But disparate impact is disparate impact and racist outcomes are racist outcomes.

If we’re going to fight to maintain global inequality and keep our position as the world’s 1%-ers, then I think it behooves us to recognize and own the implicit racism that goes along with that.

Doesn’t mean its wrong. I’m not in a hurry to lose my 1% status ($48K household income), but I think intellectual honesty demands I acknowledge that I am putting the maintenance of my status over the significant improvements in the well-being of non-whites in the developing world.

106

They aren’t the same. Stop pretending they are, please. We can work on job creation without turning to racism. As much as he’s stumbled reaching out to black working class Americans, he’s not doing what trump is doing. Stop. You don’t have to like or agree with Sanders to see that we are talking about two very different things.

4 Likes
107

Trail of Tears and Japanese internment weren’t deportation, but relocation. Not that that makes either of them okay. And the slave trade was importation.

(But if Nazi Germany had been so good at deportation they wouldn’t have done that whole Holocaust thing. Likewise the Soviets re gulags and pogroms.)

1 Like
108

Trump is infinitely more pernicious as he uses racism as a tool to help get elected. The two politicians are in no way the same. But protectionism does result in racist outcomes. I’m not certain how to get around that.

Explicitly or implicitly? Certainly we can do so without the explicit racism. Implicit? Well, that depends on whether you measure outcomes by race or you require intent. The US has been using disparate impact (i.e. intent is not required), so that is what I tend to use.

Now, better access to education, healthcare, etc. all help with job creation, etc. However, protectionist policies simply prevent non-white labour from competing in the one dimension that they can - price, and I think we need to acknowledge that lest we think there is no cost to our preferred policies.

Let me also make it clear that I do not consider all racism equal. I am no doubt racist is many capacities, and being a white male, my racism is vastly more dangerous to society as a whole. But I am immodest enough to not equate my racism with a call to ban all Muslims, repeal civil rights, etc.

This means that while it is important to consider the inherent racism in a particular policy, it does not automatically negate the policy’s worthiness. After all, almost all educational initiatives will be disproportionately used by whites and Asians.

Again, my bugaboo is too ensure that we remain aware of all the costs of our preferred policies. Without that awareness, we’re in danger of never even attempting to minimize that cost.

Now I grant that acknowledging costs is terrible politics, but an absolute requirement for intelligent policy. Since this board here is not going to be influencing people’s votes, it seems a fairly reasonable avenue for intelligent policy discussion, and that requires acknowledging the costs so that we can weigh them against the benefits.

And I’m always happy to supply all the reasons as to why my most deeply held beliefs are also bad ideas. I just think the goods parts are better than the bad parts are bad.

109

So do open borders, free trade policies. Racism is not related to whether or not a globalized free market exists, or rather it is, in that racism exists in either configuration. Periods of free trade were think with racism, as well eras of protectionism.

Sure.

Again, fair enough. I cant’ disagree with this.

I think it’s important to remember that racism floats free of protectionism vs. free trade. The question at the heart of all this is how are we going to deal with policies that disenfranchise ALL working class people. I do think we can’t undo the damage of NAFTA, but we can maybe reorient our economy and figure out what we can produce here that will provide good, steady work for the most people. I’d guess that Sanders is probably more interested in exploring these options than Trump, who will only work in his own (and his class) interest, despite his protectionist rhetoric.

1 Like
110

Agreed. These tend to disproportionately impact the Americans who have the the fewest skills/education to distinguish themselves from foreign workers as well as those who suffer from discrimination and thus are already forced to compete against white workers using price.

I suspect I’m a bit of a pessimist here, in that I think we’re not likely to see a return to the the golden era until we have good, steady work for almost all people, and this time it will have to include most of the world, not just the developed world. Wages tend to rise only when businesses are forced to compete for workers, and there’s a lot of possible workers on the entire globe.

I suspect we’re in for 2-3 generations of exceptional unhappiness as we lose our birthright of being the global 1%-ers. I don’t envy my children or their descendants.

111

Don’t you love it when Republicans claim that it’s the Democrats who look down on “flyover country” when they seem to be the only ones using the term? As we can see by recent events in both Chicago and St. Louis, Midwesterners are perfectly capable of seeing through the lies. We’re not going to put up with his :poop:

5 Likes
112

Is that a contest on evilness?

113

You mean there aren’t like, cows and chickens wandering all over the streets of Chicago?

2 Likes
114

Sure. But jobs did not go overseas on a whim (or people don’t hire cheap labor from undocumented workers, etc). It was people making choices to not keep jobs here. But they are shooting themselves in the foot if they make any sort of consumer good, because at some point, wages get driven down so low, that people can afford to buy anything, and the consumer economy stalls.

Yeah, I’m with you there! there is plenty to be pessimistic about! :wink:

I think that’s true. But we don’t have to return to the job security of the 1950s (which, as I’m sure you’re aware, did not evenly benefit all workers, not just split between the developed and developing world, but here, domestically, generally along racial lines). I think part of the problem is that too many people think we need to have rapid and constant growth, but sustainability should be the key. And you absolutely need a strong and united labor movement, globally, at this point, to make sure wages track with costs of living.

It might help to get the compensation packages for the C-level folks under tighter control. It not only is economically wasteful, but creates tension between workers and the owners/management.

To be sure, it’s a complex problem, but I don’t think it’s an insurmountable one, if we get policies moving in the right direction, that are people centered, not profit centered.

4 Likes
115

At least you didn’t say “thugs”!!!

Chickens though…I know a half-dozen families who keep chickens in their very urban yards. It’s legally allowed, and a fun way to be “green”.

2 Likes
116

I do have to admit that if Trump gets elected - and Congress doesn’t suddenly get burned down - that Trump if probably a better choice than the other Republican options.

But I’m a Catholic, and have been following a Jewish socialist my whole life, so I’m hoping I get to vote one into office.

1 Like
117

Which Jewish socialist?

118

clara-see-what.gif443×281 342 KB

I think he means Jesus…

4 Likes
119

My guess too. It can’t be that hoarsy, white-hair grampa who waves his arms around on the teevee for a second or two once a week or so. Cuz that guy’s a commynist.

3 Likes
120

Wow, how did I miss that? Thanks @anon61221983 and @anon15383236.

I just had a great conversation last night with a friend (over wine, of course): both of her children have decided they’re no longer Christians and I pointed out that they’re probably reacting to the nastiness of American Christianity, which is about as far removed from Christ as it’s possible to be. She’s a Christian and I’m not, so it was kind of funny that I was arguing FOR a metaphorical acceptance of Christ. Totally forgot about the guy this morning, though!

3 Likes
121

No prob, I get the two of them confused sometimes too!

( okay, not really :wink: )

7 Likes
122

I think the inflated wages of the C-suite (and winners throughout the globe) are far more an aspect of the increasing winner-take-all aspect of globalization rather than any particular greed. Where there used to be 10 regional companies, with each CEO earning $X, there is now 1 company with a CEO earning $5X.

(This applies not only to CEOs, but any product that has now gone global. Can you imagine a Damien Hirst in the 60s?)

I did a back of the envelope calculation and if we confiscated the earning of the top 1% and redistributed it to everyone else, it would add about $4K to the annual American $34 median salary. Not chump change, but they’re not beggaring everyone else directly. (If you want serious money, confiscate everyone’s earnings in the top 10%. Redistributing all the earnings of successful accountants, computer programmers, nets you an extra $14K for the other 90%)

I think the serious problem with excessive CEO salaries is not the actual financial damage, it’s the psychological damage - the feeling (on both sides) that they barely share the same future.

I’d agree, but I find it hard to criticize them when I don’t voluntarily spend 2-3x the cost for anything simply to keep things manufactured here. It really smacks of “Do as I say, not as I do.”

I’m old enough to remember the pre-“China as the world’s workshop”. We were standard middle class, and my mother patched our clothes, and my father had a workshop to repair broken items, because nothing manufactured was cheap. It wasn’t a bad life at all, but now (especially to the younger generation), it would feel like poverty (especially for electronics!)

123

Yeah, we called him Andy Warhol.

1 Like
124

Good point (I thought about Warhol as well), but he was mostly a US/UK phenomena. It was only when art truly happened upon the world stage, and thus the “winners” where truly globally famous that the art market reached its current stratospheric heights.