More specific
A couple weeks ago I hypothesized that Trump was winning in places that have been economically damaged by this 30-year Depression, and losing in places that remain comparatively prosperous.

This is broadly true but too simple. When commenting on an article at Unz, I realized: Kansas, Okla and Texas are comparatively prosperous, and Cruz won them. Prosperity itself isn't the only factor. In those states prosperity depends on oil and wheat, which are EXPORT commodities. Those states have never depended on the industries that have been destroyed by outsourcing and immigration.

For oil and wheat, the current situation is satisfactory. Protectionism sounds risky when you're on a roll.

Trump could have mitigated this with more specifics.

Proper trade policy is always highly specific. We're in trouble because we stopped making specific treaties with specific countries, instead letting vast international organizations make our trade policy. When a government is constantly negotiating with other countries, one on one, it's possible to serve the interests of our textile workers AND our wheat farmers.

More importantly: When a government is determined to keep its own industries alive, it can find a way to do it. Our government has been determined to KILL our own industries for the last 30 years. Movement of work is the big problem, not movement of stuff.

If we had proper politics, another candidate could have noticed this problem and improved on Trump's specifics, grabbing voters on both sides of the import/export line. But we don't have proper politics. The other Rs still consider Trump to be an Unthinkable TROLL, and still consider his voters to be literally Untouchable. Trying to get votes is still UNACCEPTABLE INTOLERABLE ALL OPTIONS ON THE TABLE.

Labels: Make or break

  ¶ 4:58 PM