Of course, Trumps intention is obviously to pick American winners. The basis being that US society is healthier with productive work, even if materially worse off.
It’s a simple argument, and it is quite obvious and uncontroversial that anationalistic growth oriented economics has a fundamentally different precept for assessment of wealth.
In the long term, there has been a net export of industry, which is unsurprising for historically mercantilist economies.
From a geopolitical perspective, it is hard to think how an industrialised nation can maintain its power and dominance over an extended period of history, after the deliberate exportation of it’s heavy industry.
In the context of the domestic political debate, the left and right are now seemingly in a state of flux. This is why we see the absurdity of the left relentlessly attacking a protectionist, and the confusion produced by the paradox of ‘identity’ politics.
There seems to be a real sense of loss as to how to respond, so the focus becomes on grandiose and simple issues such as the wall, or unlikely and far fetched scenarios such as a nuclear war with China over the south sea.
How can the left develop a consistent policy to protecting labour, when it turns a blind eye to the continual importation of an unprotected, economic underclass of ‘illegals’ that prop up the wealth of the upper class?
How can the left present itself as the socially progressive party, when it has no useful policy towards the vacuum following the collapse of deprotected industry?
The simple answer is that the left and right have no intention of responding to this, they accept it as the natural order. This has given rise to the mild populism of Trump, which may be fairly characterized as proto fascist, which means essentially that he is a nationalist.
The lefts current plan seems to be continue with the internal dialogue of tweets that rendered them unelectable, and outright hostility to the suggestion that perhaps this is not such a productive path.
The reason fascism took off in Germany and Italy was that it was that it held greater political credibility with the populace. This was in the context of an active and determined communist movement, who really did have a plan.
It is difficult to evaluate where the politically correct ‘identity’ politics of the left stand today, in historical terms. It has more in common with social movements like hippies, who had no political credibility. There is no effective left wing opposition from this movement, in fact it undermines left credibility, which is obvious with Corby in the UK.
Every time these people rant on about Trump being a misogynist, a racist, a fascist, a Russian agent, the harbinger of nuclear apocalypse, or whatever the next ludicrous accusation is to be… they kick a goal for Trump, as they discredit themselves in the eyes of people who might actually change their vote.
More insidiously, they mire the debate and greatly hinder the process of the left responding to this new state of affairs.
In part, this is to be somewhat expected in this stage of the political cycle. It’s a new term and nothing can be done except whinge and complain. But even at the highest level, the failures are attributed to Trump, or even more pointlessly, to the voters.
Good luck, I guess…
