Is Trump winning? (yes and no)
Here’s Tyler Cowen in Bloomberg:
What about trade and immigration, two issues dear to the heart of President Donald Trump? In those areas I expect to see surprisingly few changes. Fears about China are bipartisan, and with his quest for a market-boosting trade agreement with China, Trump is turning out to be a trade dove, relatively speaking. Meanwhile, on NAFTA, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives is holding up the renegotiated agreement.
Most important, I don’t see the major Democratic presidential candidates making a big public push for Trans-Pacific Partnership, the World Trade Organization or any other trade agreements. The era of greater skepticism about trade and globalization is probably here to stay, and it counts as one of Trump’s ideological triumphs.
And immigration? Well, I don’t expect our next president to separate arriving children from their parents. But neither do I expect a big breakthrough on immigration policy. Are any of the leading Democratic candidates putting forward a grand immigration plan for public debate? No, even though in other areas they are quite willing to think big. They realize that in terms of intensity, America is moving to the right on immigration — as it did a century ago, leading up to the 1920s restrictions. Count that as at least a half-triumph for Trump.
I don’t think this is right; I don’t believe Trump’s had any ideological triumph’s—just losses. Although I don’t intend to contest the view that Trump personally has been successful with these topics as issues. He won in 2016 and might win in 2020. But in two other areas, one obvious and one less obvious, I think he’s failed. Start with the obvious; this is from today’s news:
“But illegal immigration is simply spiraling out of control and threatening public safety and national security.”
Someone suffering TDS? No, the official in charge of Trump’s immigration enforcement program. Trump’s more than half way through his term, and he’s completely failed to do anything about the single most important issue in his campaign.
I also disagree with Tyler’s comparison of the mood in America today with the 1920s, where there was fairly broad support for restricting immigration. I get that Tyler notes the “intensity” of the anti-immigration crowd. Indeed he has to, as the polls clearly show increasing support for immigration. (I doubt that was the case in the 1920s.) But I think it’s more complicated than that, with three groups involved, not just two.
You have 3% to 5% of the US population directly impacted by immigration crackdowns, and they intensely oppose Trump. Another 30% are fairly strongly opposed to immigration, for nationalistic or economic reasons. And then there are about 65% of people who don’t pay a lot of attention to the issue, but are becoming increasingly sympathetic to immigrants. Importantly for the future, the young are especially strongly moving in favor of immigration.
Does this sound familiar? How about 3% to 5% of Americans are gays who intensely support gay marriage, 30% strongly oppose it for religious/cultural reasons, and 65% who don’t give it much thought, but are increasingly in favor? How’d that issue play out over time? Gays benefited from a media that increasingly portrayed them sympathetically as real people, not caricatures. Isn’t the same beginning to occur with illegal immigrants?
Where Trump may win is the politics of immigration, even while losing on policy. While he ran in 2016 as a dealmaker who could get things done, a man who would force Congress to do his bidding, we’ve discovered he’s actually an appallingly incompetent dealmaker. Now he portrays himself as a victim of faceless “elites”. His supporters lap this up, so it may not matter if Trump fails to enact Trumpism; he’s not really the President, just the “Troll in Chief”. He might be re-elected on that basis, with the help of the hapless Dems. (I think it’s a toss-up.)
Trump is also losing badly on the single most important trade issue in his campaign–the deficit. Here’s a set of Bloomberg stories that appeared side by side, and caught my eye:
Hmmm, I wonder if there is any relationship? The trade deficit article had this observation:
The strong dollar matters because it has led to near-record deficits in manufactured goods and non-oil goods that are being masked by increases in exports of oil and services, [Robert] Scott said. To his mind that means the U.S.’s trade balance is worse than even the official data reflects. “There’s a lot going on below the surface here,’’ he said.
It is rather striking that the trade deficit is getting larger just as the fracking boom is dramatically improving our net export position in oil.
Tyler argues that the establishment has adopted Trump’s trade skepticism, while simultaneously arguing that Trump is actually somewhat of a trade dove. I suspect this is an example of Tyler using a bit of hyperbole to be provocative and contrarian. OK, I’ll take the bait.
The establishment has always held a “pragmatic” view of trade, where free trade was good as long as other countries played fair. (In contrast, economists believe free trade is the best policy even when other countries don’t play fair.) So I don’t think the establishment has moved in Trump’s direction, it’s always been right where it is now. It’s been hard to sell the Dems on free trade ever since the 1960s.
On the other hand, Democratic voters are moving very strongly in the free trade direction. You might argue that a steelworker in Ohio who votes for Sherrod Brown has more “intense” views on trade than a barista in San Francisco who likes imported coffee. But there’s one big problem with that. Steelworkers in Ohio are no longer Democrats, and the future of the Democratic Party is obviously not people like Sherrod Brown. Heck, I remember lots of Dems like him when I was a teenager. He’s a dinosaur. The barista in San Francisco is the future of the Democrats, which will eventually become the pro-immigration, pro-trade party.
[In the UK, the older Labour leaders (Corbyn) are skeptical of free trade, but the younger voters are super supportive of the EU. BTW, watch the Brexit end-game closely; just as Thatcher predicted Reagan, Brexit predicted Trump.]
I’m not at all optimistic about the politics of America. The 2020 election is likely to feature an awful Democrat and an even worse Republican. The budget situation is bad and will get worse. But I am pretty optimistic about trade and immigration, as I think Trump’s clearly lost on both issues and things will soon swing our way. I expect the Trump people to eventually admit that the trade deficit doesn’t matter, and indeed is often a sign of a prosperous economy. Trump cares about “winning ” more than he cares about ideology. That’s why he’s tough on Iran and soft on N. Korea; he wants to undo whatever Obama did. If Obama had done the deal with Korea, not Iran, Trump’s positions would be reversed.
I recently happened to overhear some of the most moronic talk radio I’ve ever encountered. I used to occasionally listen to Rush in the early 1990s, and he often sounded fairly intelligent, at least compared to the current right wing nuts on the radio. One tirade that caught my attention was a guy saying something like “how dare they impeach Trump, he’s been so successful”, and then cited his trade deals. No, I’m not making that up—his trade deals were cited as a policy success. (It may have been Sean Hannity, I’m not sure.) So while in substantive terms Trump has failed on trade, his supporters seem happy to accept hollow trade deals that entrench the neoliberal leviathan ever more deeply into the global economy.
And that’s really good news. Imagine if his supporters actually cared about seeing the alt-right agenda put into place. Steve Bannon must be feeling pretty lonely right now.
Tags:
7. March 2019 at 11:31
The #1 Democratic contender is at least as skeptical of free trade as Trump.
When the ends of the horseshoe agree, it’s clearly a people versus establishment issue. Have a majority of Americans ever supported free trade?
I support free trade. I remember when NAFTA first squeaked by. Every living ex-President, Democratic or Republican, lined up in favor. These are people no longer beholden to the popular will.
7. March 2019 at 12:10
Brian, How old is that guy? What do young Democrats think about trade? (Hint: they like it a lot)
7. March 2019 at 12:28
I don’t disagree with this article, but it needs an asterisk:
* Trump doesn’t care about any of this stuff. He only cares about being popular with a small section of the population or milking money from the system.
You can tell Trump doesn’t actually care about these issues because:
1. He’s made lots of self-contradictory statements about them.
2. He refuses to learn enough about these issues to be able to speak intelligently about them.
3. He outsources his administration’s policy on these topics to whatever advisers can convince him on any particular day.
7. March 2019 at 13:09
Scott, What do young Democrats think about Bernie? (Hint: they love him to death)
I don’t think young people know much about anything or spend any time thinking about trade, except they don’t like Trump.
7. March 2019 at 14:36
” Imagine if his supporters actually cared about seeing the alt-right agenda put into place.”
They (like me) would be his opponents. I actually voted for Stabenow and Stevens, because I was fed up with the lies. I don’t regret it one bit, at least the Democratic House is interesting.
Bingo.
You are correct re: Democrats and trade. Sanders/Warren/Schumer/Brown are not the future of the Democrats there. Bredesen is.
7. March 2019 at 15:57
Scott Sumner is probably right in this blog post, but perhaps for reasons that are unmentioned.
In large part, the United States’ foreign, trade, and military policies are determined by multinationals. They are a permanent and influential lobby, and can pour unlimited funds into think tanks, PR, academia, media, and even political campaigns.
So yes, what passes as “free-trade” will likely continue.
My guess is that we eventually see AOC in the White House.
7. March 2019 at 16:52
I too used to listed to Rush sometimes in the early 1990s. Back when he was against stupid conspiracy theories, and he was pro-NAFTA, and anti-anti-immigration. Turns out though that he’s just a griftertainer, like so many others. His shtick is to pretend his opinions are valuable. He can’t prance like Chuckles the Clown, so as far as entertainment value, that’s what he’s left with. It fools the chumps and he gets his $.
7. March 2019 at 17:39
I will defend Trump.
His work with McConnell has changed the federal judiciary for probably the next 15-20 years towards originalism. Terrible judicial decisions, particularly Chevron which has served as the legal rationale for an all grasping regulatory regime, are likely to be overturned. This will probably be the most important step to putting the administrative state back on its heels.
I would say his strongest policy has been his regulatory action: not so much undoing previous regulations, which is hard, but the trump administration has dramatically slowed the pace of regulation. He has done so to extent far beyond Bush or, likely, what any other republican would have done.
The tax cuts were a net-benefit, particularly the great mitigation of the tax expenditure subsidizing state taxes.
I don’t care much about the wall whether it happens or not. Trade is probably the most negative thing he has done, but its not by itself significant enough to prefer a Democrat like Hillary instead.
I’m a debt nihilist: that is, I don’t think anything can change Americas fate of a future crash. Every year politicians do nothing, the budget problems, the political will required to solve the crisis increases. We are now at a point that a crisis, and nothing else, will be the only thing that can motivate the legislator is start working to fix the problem. On the upside, their very first move will most likely be to savagely cut back on our grossly overinflated bureaucracy rather, and then raise taxes and cut entitlement benefits.
A government debt crisis will cause harm to America, but it will also explode a large part of the government itself. The political will to solve it will never arise, so, in that case, it is better to spend the money now before the opposition gets the chance to do so.
Culturally, I find the democrats terrifying. Although I definitely pass as a liberal in everyday life, my eyes are wide open about what would happen if I were to say at work one day “Hmmmm, maybe life does begin at conception” (I’m pro-abortion). The political left is terrifying, and keeping them out of office is a priority to me, even if that means voting for Trump, 2020.
7. March 2019 at 18:43
OT, but fresh, reported yesterday:
US unit labor costs up 1% in last year, tracking the less than 1% annual rise in unit labor costs for the last 10 years.
“Wages Remain a Drag on Inflation in the US.”
Boy, that is a headline you will never read.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ULCNFB
Here is how the Fed defines US labor markets, in its latest beige Book, issued March 6
“Labor markets remained tight for all skill levels, including notable worker shortages for positions relating to information technology, manufacturing, trucking, restaurants, and construction.”
Oh dear, “notable worker shortages”!
You know, that price signal just does not work!
The Fed determines this level of “worker shortages” by interviewing…employers in their 12 districts.
I wish I was making this up.
Like I said, I see AC in the White House, someday. Bernie Sanders before that?Maybe not, but only because he is old and un-charismatic.
Bernie’s two primary traits I identify with more with, as time goes by. Maybe I will vote for Bernie. Seems like a nice guy.
7. March 2019 at 19:41
” Indeed he has to, as the polls clearly show increasing support for immigration.”
Wait, so now public opinion does exist?
8. March 2019 at 01:19
I think Scott’s analysis on these topics has been mostly correct all along. He’s right in a previous post that terrorism fears regarding Muslims have been underrated in many countries, though I still think many other factors are at play.
He was also correct in predicting big liberal backlashes in previous posts. I think the Green New Deal is an example. It’s a really silly bill, representing pent up demand for certain changes on the left as well as frustration with inept Democratic leadership. Obama couldn’t even get cap and trade deal to his desk, and a fair number of progressives have wanted to take additional steps towards FDR’s Four Freedoms for a very long time.
Scott was also correct to predict backlashes in favor of PC and immigration down the road.
I do think the present post overestimates Trump’s chances at winning re-election. Trump has never polled at 50% and will be running as an incumbent with historically high negatives, particularly in Florida, which is a must win state. It will be hard to draw the inside straight he did the first time. This race is the Democrats’ to lose. That said, the Democrats are terrible at politics and there are so many candidates running on their side that the primaries could be very damaging to the potential nominee. I never want to underestimate the ability of the Democrats to blow advantages.
I also think Scott’s right and about young versus old liberals. Corbyn, in particular, is very Marxist, which helps explain his odd political views which have cost Labour a precious opportunity to be pro-Remain. He’s a policy ignoramus and political incompetent. Younger liberals are mostly not literally Marxist.
8. March 2019 at 01:31
Kevin Adolph,
You’re dreaming if you think the gains on the Supreme Court will hold up. While the present Democratic leadership is too cowardly and politically inept to pack the courts, this won’t be true of younger leaders who take over down the line, during a decades-long backlash against Republican excess. The Republicans have not played fair, and eventually, Democrats will make them pay for it.
As far as your fears of a Democratic administration are concerned, they’re so far beyond anything rational that there must be a medical explanation.
8. March 2019 at 03:43
“The Fed and ECB Confront a New Normal That Looks a Lot Like Japan’s”
From Bloomberg, today. Whud-I-say?
Does QE work? Really?
What is Plan B if QE is weak tea?
8. March 2019 at 07:38
Michael Sandifer,
I’m not particularly concerned about the prospect of court packing because, if such an avenue where open, republicans would just re-pack the courts when they regained power in a tit for tat.
“As far as your fears of a Democratic administration are concerned, they’re so far beyond anything rational…”
I honestly don’t see what your point is saying such a thing. I wonder what emotional need it satisfies. Does it convince me to stop talking? Does it convince others that I’m crazy? Wouldn’t that be apparent if my text were irrational beyond the pale?
Your ad hominem doesn’t serve a point.
8. March 2019 at 08:56
Kevin Adolph,
My point is that I think there’s something wrong with people who feared Hillary Clinton more than Trump.
8. March 2019 at 10:21
Brian, There’s a difference between liking a candidate and having an opinion on a given issue. The young in the UK like Corbyn, but they don’t agree with him on the EU.
Kevin, You said:
“His work with McConnell has changed the federal judiciary for probably the next 15-20 years towards originalism.”
So let me get this straight. Clinton is in office and Kavanaugh says no president is above the law. Then Bush gets elected and Kavanaugh suddenly says the president should be above the law.
If that’s what you mean by “originalism”, I want no part of it.
Wake me up when conservatives start supporting “states rights” for pot legalization. I don’t want conservative judges; I want impartial judges.
When discussing Trump, if you are just talking about this issue or that, then you are missing the elephant in the room. Trump has turned America into a banana republic, that matters far more than his view on immigration, taxes, health care, etc.
Policy wank, Only when I say so.
Seriously, if it doesn’t exist then Tyler’s wrong. So either way he’s wrong.
Michael, You are actually too generous to me; my political predictions have not been very accurate. I never saw Trump coming, for instance.
8. March 2019 at 11:27
Scott,
Yes, I realize you didn’t predict Trump would win, but it’d be unfair to hold you to higher standards than professional political analysts.
I hope you cut me the same slack when I make dumb statements about macroeconomics. I don’t want you to think I don’t appreciate your patience.
8. March 2019 at 11:41
Scott,
Even if what you say about kavanaugh is true, one judge on one issue is immaterial to the fact that Trump has nominated judges that are far more originalist in philosophy than what Hillary would have offered, and a good many of them.
I will wake you up when presidents start nominating impartial judges instead of partisan ones, because if you think that’s how things were working before Trump or will occur after, you are definitely dreaming.
Trump hasn’t turned the USA into a banana republic, anyone who decides to vote against him doesn’t think that either: they obviously still believe the Democratic process works.
It’s not about who Trump is, what he says, or his personal demeanor, only the policies he produces matter.
8. March 2019 at 13:38
@Kevin A:
“It’s not about who Trump is, what he says, or his personal demeanor, only the policies he produces matter.”
Actually this is almost the opposite of the truth. Trump’s policies are almost identical to what a Rubio or Jeb Bush would have produced. Almost all of his policies have been handed to him by McConnell and Ryan, most of all the judges.
The president is as much a symbol and representation of our country as he is a policy-maker. More so really, Congress writes the laws. It is disgusting that such a craven, pathetic bum is our symbol.
I understand (but don’t agree with) that for many, Hillary Clinton was so awful that they had to vote for Trump. Ok, he won, she lost, she’s gone forever. You can stop supporting him now.
8. March 2019 at 14:49
Sean, the trade deficit wasn’t *that* bad. Look at this chart on the current account as a percentage of GDP: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=ndSn
We’re nowhere near the previous cycle’s low of ~ -5.5%. Of course the trade deficit doesn’t matter when it’s this small. The point is to keep it small. In that respect Trump is winning.
8. March 2019 at 14:58
Msgkings,
Yet, this is precisely my point: Trump is supportable because the actual substance of his policies are fairly typical, definitely within the bounds of normal politics.
Given that, why not support him. Is the ing he projects really so disgusting that it degregates the actual substance, which is policy?
9. March 2019 at 08:03
I think what’s clear is that most conservatives in the US were never much like Milton Friedman, George H. W. Bush or David Brooks. There’s never been any principle for most of them. It’s always just been a collection of reactionary movements with no rational agenda whatsoever.
This actually helped serve a positive purpose against irrational socialist tendencies on the left at times, though going to great excess in cases such as McCarthy.
But, we’ve clearly seen the absence of any rational, positive agenda as Democrats gradually accepted many policy approaches of the right. Clinton signs welfare reform and tough anti-crime laws, Obama pushes Romneycare and cap-and-trade, and yet reactions to Democratic politicians just get more extreme over time. Democrats adopt freer trade policies, and now Republicans elect a wannabe protectionist.
The true conservatives are the reactionaries. They are correct to say that thoughtful people like George Will, Jennifer Rubin, and Jeb Bush are not true conservatives. They are instead people with above-average intelligence and somewhat more of a neoclassical bent.
9. March 2019 at 15:54
@Kevin A.:
So impeach him so Pence can implement the same stuff. Or primary challenge him. Oppose him.
9. March 2019 at 16:46
“Wake me up when conservatives start supporting “states rights” for pot legalization.”
You fucking idiot, Sumner. Look up Gonzales v. Raich. Tired of your opining without even attempting a hint of honesty.
9. March 2019 at 16:50
“Clinton is in office and Kavanaugh says no president is above the law. Then Bush gets elected and Kavanaugh suddenly says the president should be above the law.”
You fucking idiot, Sumner.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/kavanaugh-and-military-commissions-reading-law-written-unpopular-defendant
9. March 2019 at 16:52
In our universe, these are the same thing, sadly. I, personally, do not want impartial judges; I want judges who rule the way I like.
“Trump has turned America into a banana republic, that matters far more than his view on immigration, taxes, health care, etc.”
Scott Sumner, placing words and style above the welfare of millions. Sick.
10. March 2019 at 08:11
So what is going on with Sumner’s friend Tyler Cowen? He rarely posts economic essays at Bloomberg, posting social commentary instead. Is Cowen being the contrarian, or has his infatuation with Leo Strauss consumed him, so that all of his posts including his own blog posts must be interpreted from a Straussian perspective? Or has Cowen been inhabited by body snatchers? Maybe Sumner needs to do an intervention.
10. March 2019 at 11:11
Everyone, In the long run, process is far more important than policy. If you become a banana republic, eventually the policies will catch up.
11. March 2019 at 23:13
It’s foolhardy to worship process. Nothing says all constitutional systems are better than banana republics. I’m reminded of the Star Trek episodes where the main cast seriously debate whether they have a moral duty to allow genocide to happen because of the all-important Prime Directive™.
12. March 2019 at 19:28
Sumner, tell that to the Koreans and the Taiwanese.
13. March 2019 at 18:16
Watched the 3 CNN town halls on Sunday. AFAICR there was not a single blue collar questioner. It’s a new party.