You might want to consider switching parties
If your political views are pretty much the same as back in 2014, it might be time to switch parties. CNBC recently reported some interesting poll results. In 2014, Democrats were against free trade by a margin of 13 percentage points. Today they favor free trade by 41 points. A 54 point swing in just 3 years. In 2014, Republicans were against free trade by 3 points, today they oppose free trade by 26 points. (This is from memory, I can’t find the link.)
Other polls show the parties switching positions on whether Putin is a threat to the US.
If you are a free trader who likes immigration and doesn’t like Putin, the Democratic Party is your home. If you are a protectionist who doesn’t like immigration and likes Putin, then the GOP is your home.
This is one of the most rapid realignments that I have ever seen, but it’s not unprecedented. What seems to be happening is that the GOP is increasingly becoming like those right-wing, nationalist, pro-Russian, anti-globalization, socially conservative, pro-coal, pro-social insurance parties in Eastern Europe. And the Democrats are becoming increasingly like the “liberal” parties in Eastern Europe, which tend to be pro-trade, environmentalist, internationalist, socially liberal and anti-Russian.
Amirite?
Tags:
1. March 2017 at 14:54
Scott, I have a easy bet for you. $20. NO biggie.
Without receiving anything of comparable value in return India reduces their 100% tariff on Harley-Davison.
FACT: RICARDO DID NOT MEASURE UTILITY OF FOREIGNERS
Ricardo said GO MOLEST TRADING PARTNERS IF YOU CAN.
Scott, let me say this loud and clear – I’m a free trader – you are something else – bc I’m a better brutal negotiator than you and free traders don’t let you anywhere near the table, you sit in back row and cheer the deal makers.
YOU SIT IN BACK ROW AND CHEER OR YOU ARE NOT A FREE TRADER SCOTT
1. March 2017 at 14:55
These one-dimensional approval ratings tend to obscure the probable underlying factors. Interpreting them as “changes in belief” rather than “changes in framing” can be problematic.
For example, the salient aspect of “free trade” isn’t the same as it was a few years ago. For the left, dislike of free trade used to be about using free trade agreements to undermine worker protections or as giveaways to corporations. These were the salient aspects around the time of e.g. the WTO protests in Seattle in 1999. Today the salient aspect appears to be blowing up international cooperation and starting trade wars; the left typically endorses cooperation.
Regarding Putin, something pretty noticeable happened between 2014 and 2017 to change the alignment for the left.
1. March 2017 at 15:24
Jason, And what happened to change the views of the right regarding Putin?
1. March 2017 at 15:33
I suspect the public is malleable.
1. March 2017 at 15:52
Repeat after me: Bernie Sanders is not a Republican. The 1852 Democratic platform is not a 2020 Democratic platform. Anybody who denies this is a moron.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29575
“If you are a protectionist who doesn’t like immigration and likes Putin, then the GOP is your home.”
-No; both parties can be your home.
1. March 2017 at 15:55
There’s also been a big shift in which party believes in conspiracy theories. Of course I read it in a fake newspaper, so who knows?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/upshot/why-more-democrats-are-now-embracing-conspiracy-theories.html
1. March 2017 at 16:04
“And what happened to change the views of the right regarding Putin?”
-The results of the 2016 Indiana primary.
What caused the views of the left to change regarding whether or not Russia is America’s greatest geopolitical foe?
1. March 2017 at 16:19
“If you are a free trader who likes immigration and doesn’t like Putin, the Democratic Party is your home.”
This almost fits me except I am a free trader who likes “LEGAL” immigration. This rules out the Democratic Party.
1. March 2017 at 16:39
My take is that with politicians so fickle about free-market philosophy there is little hope any one party will consistently advocate free-market policies. In addition, political parties are internally inconsistent on free-market policies. So the Democrats might say they are now for free-trade with foreign nations but good luck getting them to advocate free-trade within our own nation, what with their advocacy of labor regulations, product liability laws, defense of public unions and opposition to right to work laws.
1. March 2017 at 18:09
Scott,
I recall that in late 2015 you feared Trump could turn the Republican Party into an American National Front, and that seems to be what happened. Better to say Trump helped complete the transformation.
Now, Democrats seem to attract somewhat more business interests, since the Republican base turned sharply against the Chamber of Commerce, for example, over social issues, trade, and corporate political donations. And the Chamber of Commerce mostly doesn’t like the Freedom Caucus Republicans after a couple of debt limit standoffs.
1. March 2017 at 18:12
Actually, we are going full circle…back to 1920s. Obama..whose presidency I’ve often heard compared to Woodrow Wilson is being followed by Warren Harding. (Trump likes to compared to Jackson, but I think Harding is a better match)
As Will Rogers said at the time ….”Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously, and the politicians as a joke, when it used to be vice versa.”
Actually, as far as Putin goes…the republicans have always been forgiving of authoritarian types as long as they are not communists/socialists and the Democrats have always been forgiving of communists/socialists even when they are very authoritarian…so I don’t see a big change.
After all, we are friends with far worse characters than Putin..(i.e. Saudi Arabia). I think a lot of republicans think Radical Islam is enemy #1, and the enemy of your enemy is your friend…
As far as trade, the republicans historically were not free traders. Listen to a Thom Hartmann show sometime. But, just because you favor a border adjustment tax, does not make you a protectionist. Sounds like a good idea to me.
1. March 2017 at 19:12
engineer:
“After all, we are friends with far worse characters than Putin..(i.e. Saudi Arabia). I think a lot of republicans think Radical Islam is enemy #1, and the enemy of your enemy is your friend…”
–30–
For that matter, the U.S. established an Islamic narco-puppet-state in Afghanistan, the greatest exporter of opium the world has ever seen, and considered one of the most corrupt governments on Earth…where the punishment for apostasy is death.
Just to add to the irony:
“Heroin Use
Heroin use has been increasing in recent years among men and women, most age groups, and all income levels. Some of the greatest increases have occurred in demographic groups with historically low rates of heroin use: women, the privately insured, and people with higher incomes. In particular, heroin use has more than doubled in the past decade among young adults aged 18 to 25 years.
Heroin-Related Overdose Deaths
As heroin use has increased, so have heroin-related overdose deaths:
Heroin-related overdose deaths have more than quadrupled since 2010.
From 2014 to 2015, heroin overdose death rates increased by 20.6%, with nearly 13,000 people dying in 2015.
In 2015, males aged 25-44 had the highest heroin death rate at 13.2 per 100,000, which was an increase of 22.2% from 2014.”
–30–
But hey, we only spent a few trillion dollars to obtain this result. Not really a topic of polite discussion either.
1. March 2017 at 19:24
Which right-wing parties in Eastern Europe are pro-Russian? Maybe in Hungary and some Slavic countries. Definitely not the party currently in in Poland, or any of the parties in the Baltic states. They all still hate Russians and have not forgotten the Soviet deportations.
1. March 2017 at 20:07
Unfortunately you are correct. Tax cuts and deregulation (neither of which will be particularly well targeted) aren’t enough to make up for the other faults of the republican party at the moment. I really hoped 2016 would make republicans became sane again with regard to issues like global warming, deficits, taxes, and monetary policy. It turned out to be the exact opposite.
1. March 2017 at 20:28
Sigh. Sumner gets it wrong again. As Morgan Freeman, I mean Warstler says, to get maximum free trade (bilateral free trade) you need to negotiate, and threaten sanctions, to open up the other country to free trade. This is free trade 102 (no surprise Sumner doesn’t get it). Unilateral free trade (which Sumner understands, Free Trade 101) < (less than) bilateral free trade. As an advanced textbook will tell you, the only downside of Trump's strategy is that it could backfire if the other side blinks and imposes retaliatory tariffs on the USA, but, as Warstler intuits, likely they won't retaliate since the USA is the world's biggest consumer market for all the other countries in the world.
"amirite"? Whaa? Oh, I see, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=amirite
(Note the usage example given, very gay but OK)
1. March 2017 at 20:41
engineer,
“Actually, as far as Putin goes…the republicans have always been forgiving of authoritarian types as long as they are not communists/socialists and the Democrats have always been forgiving of communists/socialists even when they are very authoritarian…so I don’t see a big change.”
This strikes me as very true.
1. March 2017 at 20:43
Republicans have been opposed to immigration for quite some time. (Some would argue all the way back the the 19th century). The parties’ views on taxes, social programs, and regulation have not changed much either. I would say that except for foreign trade and Russia, Trump does not differ that much from standard-issue Republican orthodoxy.
2. March 2017 at 02:10
WTF is with all the Putin-hate ? When did he become public enemy number 2 ?
Is Scotty now a full-time agent of the Cathedral, or just an easily duped autist ?
Yo Scotty, remember how you supported the invasion of Iraq ?
Remember the lies told, lies you believed ?
What does that tell you about you cognitive abilities ?
2. March 2017 at 02:59
@Ray
you need to negotiate, and threaten sanctions, to open up the other country to free trade.
And this is only the mild stuff. People like ssumner always seem to forget/ignore how modern globalization and the “free trade” era really began. How did all the Asian countries (like China and Japan for example) usually open up their markets to European nations and/or the US?
Commodore Perry? The Treaty of Nanking? Gunboat diplomacy in general? Does this ring a bell?
Peaceful free trade full of rainbows and honey and bees is a nice theory but it has nothing to do with history and/or reality. That’s not how the world of today was forged.
2. March 2017 at 04:53
SWAMP UPSET OVER DRAINING
In the critical thinking is important category, I’m going to suggest a cause and effect relationship between this:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/01/gop-wants-to-eliminate-shadowy-doj-slush-fund-bankrolling-leftist-groups.html
The Obama administration funneled billions of dollars to activist organizations through a Department of Justice slush fund scheme, according to congressional investigators.
So far, investigators have accounted for $3 billion paid to “non-victim entities.”
And this:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/01/politics/jeff-sessions-russian-ambassador-meetings/
Attorney General Jeff Sessions met twice last year with the top Russian diplomat in Washington whose interactions with President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser Mike Flynn led to Flynn’s firing, according to the Justice Department.
Sessions did not mention either meeting during his confirmation hearings when he said he knew of no contacts between Trump surrogates and Russians. A Justice official said Sessions didn’t mislead senators during his confirmation.
The Washington Post first reported on Sessions’ meetings with the official.
2. March 2017 at 05:21
Steve, can you be less cryptic? The Fox story is a rehash of stories that came out once the details of the settlements were revealed. There is not an obvious timing link, nor some procedural development from Sessions’ removal.
2. March 2017 at 05:29
I gave up on the GOP years ago, but I still can’t stomach the Democrats. Constant identity politics. Little regard for the rule of law. Prioritising the teachers’ unions over the students. An insatiable appetite for expansions of the welfare state paid for by higher taxes on other people. Their opposition to Russia seems to be based solely on the fact that Russia (probably) embarrassed the Democrats; while Russia was carving up Georgia and Ukraine, they were inviting Russia in to Syria and mocking those who saw a Russian problem with “The 80’s called, and they want their foreign policy back.” And I suspect their support for free trade is pretty superficial, though it’s possible the protectionists have switched parties.
No, I can’t support either, and it’s freeing. Helps me fight tribal instincts if I don’t identify with either. And I can still argue issues.
2. March 2017 at 05:57
“A” Who the hell are you, and what do I need to be less cryptic about?
Democracy becomes very unstable when the executive branch directly funds tens of billions in political activism. Yes, TENS OF BILLIONS. The DOJ is just one department. The EPA is far worse. That’s what happens when you have a Community-Organizer-In-Chief ruling for eight years.
2. March 2017 at 06:55
I think you’re right on the liberal side, Scott – Tusk would fit right in in the Democrat party.
On the republican side though, while Kaczynski and Trump may have some stylistic similarities, I think we’re still a ways off. The main difference being that the tax cutting/ pro-business side of the republicans still holds a lot of sway.
For example, PiS’s biggest policy has been an absolutely enormous child tax credit. I’ve heard people describe it as roughly a quarter of a typical wage per child (haven’t checked the numbers though – that could be way off). It’s very difficult to imagine the republicans as they are currently constituted doing that.
This may be different with other CEE countries – I’m more familiar with politics in Poland than Hungary or the Czech Republic.
2. March 2017 at 07:17
“And the Democrats are becoming increasingly like the “liberal” parties in Eastern Europe, which tend to be pro-trade, environmentalist, internationalist, socially liberal and anti-Russian.”
So other than the environmentalist part (and of course, the size of govt), the Democrats now have much more in common with libertarians than the GOP? Used to be 50/50 with the dems taking the social argument and the republicans taking the economic one, but now I’d say it’s 75/25 in favor of the dems, still embracing the social arguments and now some of the economic ones.
2. March 2017 at 07:30
Rob, The GOP assault on the poor will stop as soon as poor minorities start voting for the GOP.
2. March 2017 at 07:44
“Other polls show the parties switching positions on whether Putin is a threat to the US.”
Scott, “The 1980s Are Calling, They Want Their Foreign Policy Back”
2. March 2017 at 08:49
@ssumner: don’t you have the causation arrow reversed? Poor minorities probably need to see the GOP stop assaulting them to give them their votes. And I don’t see why the GOP will do that anytime soon, they clearly don’t need them.
2. March 2017 at 09:07
@Christian List – “Commodore Perry? The Treaty of Nanking? Gunboat diplomacy in general? Does this ring a bell?” – yes, as you know, we are in violent agreement on this issue. Commodore Perry was the ULTIMATE free trader, from a game theory viewpoint. He forced Japan to trade, whether unilaterally or (even better, as Trump says he wants to do), bilaterally, to the benefit of both countries. Now the same logic applied to China, with the Opium trade, follows, though the bad externalities associated with opium of course made China a net loser (and the same with the smallpox and Conquistadors and American Indians of the 15th C, the latter got, in retrospect, a raw deal). I have also read Joe Studwell’s book on free trade practice in Asia, and, while I don’t agree with all of it, it’s good. Same for the theories of the German economist List, who shares your nym.
2. March 2017 at 09:26
http://theresurgent.com/republicans-say-sessions-should-recuse-himself-from-russia-probe-call-for-special-prosecutor/
2. March 2017 at 09:57
msgkings,
You’re right. Sadly, right now, Democrats are smarter overall about policy, but not smart. Republicans are smarter on politics, but not smart.
Democrats are extremely stupid politically and leadership-wise in general, just as Republicans are incredibly stupid policy-wise.
In this reality, there is not much possibility for good policy, and so serious problems mostly get ignored.
2. March 2017 at 10:49
Unfortunately the realignment has also put “freedom of speech”, “not rioting” on the republican side, so where’s a free trader who likes immigration and doesn’t like Putin, but also believes in the first amendment and doesn’t like political violence supposed to go?
2. March 2017 at 10:56
Lawrence D’Anna,
This is why market monetarists and supply-side liberal types need to choose a party and try to reform it. Such reform is not easy, but given the shape of each party currently, few doubt it’s needed. As the cliche goes, in crisis there’s opportunity.
I personally and looking into getting more involved with local Democratic politics, since I think Democrats mostly have the right values, but lots of dumb ideas on how to formulate policies consistent with the desired outcomes. Also, they’re very stupid politically, of course.
The Republican Party needs good people though, eventually, if it’s ever to improve.
2. March 2017 at 12:56
@Scott Sumner
You are so extremely selective in this post it’s mind boggling.
To your free trade theory: It was presidential candidate Obama who vowed to renegotiate NAFTA. That’s when Hillary realized she needs to pull away from Bush senior as well (it was Bush senior who negotiated NAFTA by the way, not the Democrats.)
That’s how all this “recent” anti-free trade populism started: with Obama. Then Sanders showed up and Hillary realized that she needs to become even more anti-NAFTA and anti-TTP. The GOP candidates had similar experiences when they kept losing to this guy named Obama in Presidential elections. So it was only a question of time until someone like Trump showed up. The truth is: Right now a lot of Democrats and a lot of Republicans are anti-free trade pretty evenly. There’s no clear winner. You think the next big Democrat will be pro free trade?! I’m sorry but you need to pull your head out of your…
The same is true for Putin and Russia: It was the media and Obama who were extremely soft on Putin all those years, even until 2012 when Romney had to tell them that Putin is America’s most dangerous foe – and all they did then was laughing at him and telling him what an idiot he was. Then the GOP lost the election again and of course the next GOP candidate (=Trump) realized that he need another strategy. But it’s still not true that the GOP likes Putin. That’s just a blatant lie. It’s just the same as with free trade right now between the GOP and the Democrats regarding Putin: It’s pretty even. I’d say most Democrats and most Republicans hate Putin’s guts, which is a good thing, but there’s no clear winner or loser.
@Ray
I agree. I like List as well. To some extent at least. I basically grew up in the city he was born. Maybe we are related, who knows?
2. March 2017 at 13:14
Lawrence, Freedom of speech on the right? Is that why CPAC told Milo to get lost?
Christian, Obviously you have not seen recent polls on this stuff.
2. March 2017 at 13:44
Freedom of association is also a thing. If CPAC doesn’t want to host Milo, that’s their business. They don’t let Hillary Clinton speak at CPAC either. That’s not the same thing as students beating people up and starting fires because they don’t want other students to host Milo at the same school as them.
2. March 2017 at 14:02
I don’t understand why people like Yiannopoulos are invited to speak on college campuses in the first place. He isn’t a scholar and nothing he talks about has anything to do with scholarship. This isn’t like having Milton Friedman opening the eyes of liberals on economic issues. He is an insulting troll, and he’s only invited to speak to offend people.
2. March 2017 at 14:08
Christian, Obviously you have not seen recent polls on this stuff.
Those polls won’t tell you much. To my knowledge this stuff is well researched. In those kind of polls party affiliation is more important than content. Right now people tend to connect being pro Putin and opposing free trade with Trump. That’s why the switch happened. I highly doubt that this will last. It also has nothing to do with the core values of the politicians in Congress, Republicans in Congress remain anti-Putin. And yes, a link would be nice to see the actual numbers, not just your memory.
And what conservative right-wing Eastern European parties are pro Putin by the way? Can you give actual party names or what is your basis for this? The most important Eastern European parties are PiS in Poland and Fidesz in Hungary. PiS politicians hate Putin’s guts and Viktor Orbán talks to Putin but mostly for pragmatic reasons. To my knowledge the last pro Putin candidates who won elections have been Rumen Radev (Bulgaria) and Igor Dodon (Moldavia) – both are left-wing. Most socialist and communist parties in Eastern Europe are pro Russia (what a surprise). Not to mention Alexis Tsipras from Greece. There are conservative politicians who like Putin as well (no doubt about that) but I don’t see a special right-wing pattern here. And there’s an important difference: Right-wing Eastern Europe politicians don’t dream of a reunion with “Mother Russia” but this is exactly the wet dream of many socialist and communist parties in Eastern (and Western) Europe.
2. March 2017 at 14:44
Scott Freelander:
I thought the problem for Democrats at the state and local level was that they are fiscally incompetent.
2. March 2017 at 15:36
Carl,
That’s interesting. Which blue states are in anywhere near the fiscal trouble Kansas or Louisiana are in?
2. March 2017 at 17:56
Scott Freelander:
Apparently, Kansas is the Left’s favorite whipping boy at the moment. However, Mercatus reports that the worst 10 states with regard to fiscal health are (note the red state/blue state ratio):
1. Connecticut
2. Massachusetts
3. New Jersey
4. Illinois
5. Kentucky
6. Hawaii
7. California
8. Maine
9. New York
10. Maryland
Just to provide another source and measure, Pew reports the following 10 worst states with regard to debt and unfunded retirement costs as a share of state personal income (blue states outnumber red again):
1. Alaska
2. Hawaii
3. Illinois
4. New Jersey
5. Connecticut
6. New Mexico
7. Kentucky
8. Delaware
9. Mississippi
10. Massachusetts
2. March 2017 at 18:05
It seems to me that the best way to model the parties is to assume policy changes in ways that will help them get votes with the minimum amount of pain. The Republican base is still evangelicals, who for the most part don’t care about policy, and southern whites, and we sure know what those care about. Therefore, the republicans just couldn’t hold on to those and get votes from minorities: Their only way out was whites further north, and those care about policy: protectionism and manufacturing.
At the same time, the democrats also have a base that cares more about morals than anything else: the left side of libertarianism. The natural reaction to the republican movement towards protectionism is to go take the other side of economic policy, and embrace free trade: Their base already wanted relatively open borders, so it’s not that insane a stretch.
It’s unfortunate that so many people don’t see this angle, because it explains so much. Today I was talking with a libertarian leaning republican about Sessions. My friend claims to care about state rights as a matter of principle, and his opposition to sessions had to do with how he thinks he’s pro centralization, given his views on weed. I explained instead that Session has no principled view of stats vs federal rights, and, just as any politician, prefers things to be at the level that makes it easier for him to meet his goals. Session doesn’t want weed anywhere, and therefore wants the question to be federal. At the same time, Session loves making it hard for black people to vote, and to make their vote as weak as possible (because they vote democrat), therefore, he is a big believer in a state’s freedom to change their election machine as much as possible to make sure that the country is not all that representative.
The question is still what demographics do to each party’s bases, because last time I checked, the number of liberals keeps growing, and the number of white evangelicals shrinks.
2. March 2017 at 20:27
Lawrence, Universities are also free to not invite conservatives speakers, aren’t they? So why do conservatives make such a big fuss?
Bob, Good point about Sessions. The only place he’s consistent is being on the wrong side of every issue.
2. March 2017 at 20:46
Thanks poorlando.
Scott Freelander:
You’ll find the answer to your question here: https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/Norcross-Fiscal-Rankings-2-v2.pdf.
3. March 2017 at 07:48
Scott, universities are free to invite who they like. Many of them have a general policy allowing student groups to invite who *they* like. In which case the College Republicans or whoever might invite someone that the campus leftists don’t like. And what happens next? Do the leftists just decide not to attend? Do they invite their own speaker for a rebuttal? No, they disrupt[*] and shout and block the doors and that’s if you’re lucky. If you’re not they’ll beat people up and throw Molotov cocktails and start fires.
This is exactly what happened with Milo at Berkely. He was invited by a student group. The university (reluctantly) confirmed the invitation in it’s own official statements. Result: riots, fires, beatings.
Why make such a fuss? Why worry about a little bit of political violence among friends?
I mean are you serious? Can you possibly be unaware of this? Have you not read impassioned and sincere defuses of political violence, written by people who call themselves “liberals”? I have. I feel like the whole world has been turned upside down. Honestly it scares the shit out of me.
And why does it matter what happens to Milo? He’s not a scholar right, who care if he can speak on campuses? He’s just a troll right? What about Charles Murray? Is he qualified enough as a scholar for his rights to be worthy of respect? They invite Milo because Milo is a line in the sand. They invite Milo because if the left can’t shut down Milo then they can’t shut down anyone, because Milo is worse.
[*] Don’t say “they have a free speech right to be disruptive”. That’s nonsense. Ordinarily, anyone who shows up where other people are trying to meet or do something together and shouts and disrupts and blocks the doors would be asked to leave. If they don’t leave cops or security guards will be called and they’ll be removed. Unless they’re leftist protestors, in which case nobody will do anything about it. Can you even imagine rightist protestors behaving that way? Can you imagine it would be tolerated for a minute?
3. March 2017 at 09:14
I must say, judging by their love affair with Bernie Sanders, I don’t buy that the Democrats have become free trade zealots. I think they are just anti-Trump. If someone like Romney were to run in 2024 there would be no shortage of Democrats complaining about sending good jobs overseas.
Please don’t take this as an endorsement of the Republicans however. they are just as bad.
3. March 2017 at 11:06
Scott,
The mission of a public university is to educate students by exposing them to many different points of view.
The mission of CPAC is to organize conservative political activists and coordinate messaging to support conservative causes.
If you think they should be held to the same standards with regards to free speech, I’d like to know why.
Nobody would object to the Democrats rejecting Steve Bannon as a keynote speaker at their political conferences.
4. March 2017 at 15:33
Carl, poorlando,
I don’t care about opinions of state fiscal solvency. Just show me the yield curves on comparable state bonds. This is a market monetarist blog, after all.