I realize trade policy has been a very contentious issue among Democrats during the last 30 years or so. But they absolutely must seize the current opportunity to go after Trump’s tariff program, as I argued at New York:
For months, Democratic elected officials have been trying to figure out a compelling message on Donald Trump’s agenda that will gratify the grassroots Democratic demand for vocal and united opposition. At the moment, the headlines are full of extremely high-profile turmoil involving Trump’s “Liberation Day” agenda of tariffs and trade warfare. It is likely getting the attention of not only politically active people but anyone whose investments or 401(k) accounts are affected by equity markets. And there is zero question that rank-and-file Democrats hate what Trump is trying to do with greater unanimity than on any of the other things they hate about Trump 2.0. If you have any doubts about that, check out the very latest, post–Liberation Day findings from Quinnipiac:
“97 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of independents and 44 percent of Republicans think the tariffs will hurt the U.S. economy in the short-term. Forty-six percent of Republicans, 19 percent of independents and 2 percent of Democrats think the tariffs will help the U.S. economy in the short-term. …
“95 percent of Democrats, 57 percent of independents and 10 percent of Republicans think the tariffs will hurt the U.S. economy in the long-term. Eighty-seven percent of Republicans, 35 percent of independents and 3 percent of Democrats think the tariffs will help the U.S. economy in the long-term.”
You don’t see polling that conclusive very often, even in this era of hyper-polarization. But beyond the simple fact that the Democratic base instinctively hates Trump’s tariff agenda, this should strike Democratic politicians as a heaven-sent opportunity to expose Trump on an issue of maximum vulnerability: the cost of living. One would think, given the crucial importance of this issue to his victory over Joe Biden last November, that the 47th president would do anything imaginable to avoid a spike in consumer prices anytime soon. But instead, Trump is courting exactly the worst kind of disaster, and voters across the board recognize it:
“Most Americans are bracing for higher prices on a wide range of consumer goods following President Donald Trump’s move to impose sweeping new tariffs on imports from most of the world, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found.
“The three-day poll, which concluded on Sunday, found that 73% of respondents said they thought prices in the next six months would increase for the items they buy every day after the new taxes on almost all imports took effect.”
So in recognition of this potentially earth-shaking own-goal by Trump, the product of his economic ignorance and long-held ideology, Democratic elected officials should be issuing a trumpet call of great volume and total clarity, right?
Check out this description in the Washington Post of a speech by one of the Democratic Party’s brightest stars and see if it reflects the total opposition to Trump’s tariff agenda that is clearly called for at this particular moment:
“Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a potential 2028 presidential candidate, sought Wednesday to distinguish herself from fellow Democrats who have been strongly criticizing President Donald Trump and his tariffs, offering a more nuanced assessment during a speech emphasizing bipartisanship in Washington.
“The speech came ahead of a meeting with Trump at the White House, her second since Trump returned to office.
“Whitmer made clear that she disagreed with Trump’s sweeping and abrupt use of tariffs, saying it has been ‘really tough’ on her state and the auto industry that powers its economy. But she withheld more pointed criticism of the president, saying she understands the “motivation” behind his tariffs and agrees that Americans ‘need to make more stuff in America.'”
Now, as it happens, Whitmer made her mixed message immeasurably worse by immediately going into a private Oval Office meeting with Trump that the president (either craftily or fortuitously) turned into a photo op in which the Michigan governor stood there while he signed some particularly obnoxious executive orders. It’s not exactly the picture of vicious hand-to-hand combat with the authoritarian of the White House that grassroots Democrats have been demanding. But Whitmer’s not alone in struggling to bring herself to blast Trump’s tariffs entirely, as Jonathan Chait quickly pointed out at The Atlantic:
“Two days after President Donald Trump’s shambolic “Liberation Day” announcement, which set off a full-scale economic meltdown, House Democrats released a video response. It was oddly sedate, almost academic in its nuance. The video featured Representative Chris Deluzio, from western Pennsylvania, who calmly intoned, ‘A wrong-for-decades consensus on “free trade” has been a race to the bottom’ and ‘Tariffs are a powerful tool. They can be used strategically, or they can be misused.’
“As the American public was screaming, ‘Please, God, no!’ the Democrats were calmly whispering, ‘Yes, but.’”
From a purely historical perspective, this anti-anti-protectionism is astounding. Until very recently, basic support for free trade (albeit sometimes with exceptions) was the oldest continuing policy tradition of the Democratic Party. Every Democratic president from Martin Van Buren to Barack Obama favored expanded global trade to create new markets and reduce consumer prices. But, as Chait observed, that changed with Joe Biden, who embraced “a decade-old strategy designed to co-opt Trump’s appeal to working-class voters by backing away from the party’s general support for free trade under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama” (and, I’d add, under Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, and Carter). This reversal was reinforced by multiple factors, including the longtime protectionism of manufacturing unions, the hostility to globalization among progressive activists, and the pivotal role Rust Belt swing states have played in the politics of the Trump era. It’s no coincidence that Whitmer represents one of those states, and one in which Democrats have long embraced trade restrictions.
In the current Trump 2.0 emergency, maintaining an anti-anti-protectionist position is incredibly shortsighted. Democrats do not need to declare themselves 100 percent free traders in order to 100 percent deplore what Trump is doing, instead of tut-tutting that he’s doing a good thing in a bad way. Trump’s innate 19th-century protectionist instincts will always create enormous pressures for falling economic growth and rising consumer prices; indeed, the ultimate economic nightmare of stagflation is precisely what some economists consider the most likely consequence of a MAGA trade war.
If Democrats believe half of what they are saying about the threat to democracy Trump 2.0 represents, they’ll recognize that a strong pushback against Trump’s tariffs is absolutely the best way to undermine his political position and divide Republicans, a majority of whose elected officials are stone free traders in the Reagan-Bush tradition. Democrat thinkers and political practitioners have plenty of time to figure out exactly what their own international economic policies will be if they regain the White House in 2028. But if they don’t take full advantage of the present opportunity to unite grassroots Democrats and inflation-hating voters generally and exploit Trump’s unforced errors on trade policy, they will have nobody but themselves to blame if power continues to remain elusive.
The last 2 polls in NJ prior to this show a 5-8 point lead for Kerry in NJ. Q* is showing a 3 point lead for Kerry, whereas they earlier had it a tie, so Kerry has picke dup 3 points.
There are plenty of reasons to believe NJ will be closer than in 2000. But Gore won by 16 points. Kerry can give up half of that and still win.
SJ — nice work desparetly spinning.
Rawls posted an interesting Missouri poll from surveyusa.com.
In looking at it, there’s an interesting data point; on page 9 of 25 of the doc, it indicates that voters who identify themselves as Military/Veterans (I couldn’t find anyhting in this doc that elaborated on how they asked about that category) the two candidates were 48-48.
It’s only a data point, but if connected with others, it might suggest the interesting conclusion that Veterans/Military are less subject to the smaears on Kerry’s record than the non-veterans/military identifiers.
I dunno about you Smooth, but every poll I’ve seen from NJ shows Kerry ahead by 8-10 points.
Frankly, I feel sorry that you fell for Bush’s “blue feint.” Last time it was CA, this time NJ. This is a classic Bush tactic. Like when he campaigned (for governor) in strongly Democrat El Paso, but lost El Paso County anyhow.
> If Kerry is barely tied in NJ, he is NOT tied nationally.
The operative word being “if.”
Hi Ruy,
Just thought I’d bring this to the attention of your board: We’re still in it in Missouri.
I wish the Kerry / Edwards campaign would come to Missouri instead of writing us off. Its a neck and neck race here and we could use some coattails.
http://www.surveyusa.com/2004_Elections/MO041005wpresvgovysenx.pdf
A bit more detail:
Coldeye gives the “nearest integer” figure from Rasmussen’s homepage. The “daily snapshot” in the Premium Members’ area has a Bush lead of 0.3%, down from 0.9 yesterday; but in the 16 Batleground States Kerry is actually up by 1.5.
RV: 48% Kerry and 45% for Bush ?
LV: 47% Kerry and 46% Bush?
That does not sound like a tie to me. It sounds like a slim lead. But I am no polling or statistics expert.
I understand it is difficult for Republicans to face the fact that Kerry is improving in the polls as the Quinnipiac Poll points out.
Smooth-
I’m sorry, New Jersey has just as much a chance of going for Bush as Georgia does for Kerry. There’s no chance it will happen.
Also, Rasmussen also has the race finally tied again. It remains to be seen whether Kerry will regain the lead in that poll as well.
Today’s Rasmussen tracking poll has Kerry pulling into a tie with Bush for the first time since the Repub convention.
Bush’s approval rating declined significantly as did his ratings on the economy and Iraq.
Oh well, Here we go again: The Mass/NH based ARG poll with the obligatory Kerry “lead”. Read my bytes: If Kerry is barely tied in NJ, he is NOT tied nationally. To Wit:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11375.xml
(Note: Click on the Oct 6 link)
Quinnipiac University
Oct 6, 2004
Polling Results
October 6, 2004 – Debate Gives Kerry 3-Point Edge In New Jersey, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; But Voters Say Bush Acts More Like A Leader
Democratic challenger John Kerry has moved into a very narrow 49 – 46 percent lead over President George W. Bush among New Jersey likely voters, with 2 percent for independent candidate Ralph Nader, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
This compares to a 48 – 48 percent Bush-Kerry tie among likely voters, with 2 percent for Nader, in a September 21 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe- ack) University.
Among registered voters backing President Bush, 82 percent say they are voting more for the President. Among Kerry supporters, 42 percent say they are voting more for the Democrat while 52 percent say they are voting more against Bush.