Is Trump right?

Critics were quick to suggest Donald Trump was living in a dream world when he suggested the trade deficit is a U.S. foreign policy problem. The Establishment insists globalization: Lowering economic levels to the lowest common denominator, elimination of borders, environmental “justice” that moves the First World backwards, etc. will bring peace. They have no evidence, but that is they’re belief.

more tradeWhen Trump used the term “America first” to describe his foreign policy, critics insisted he was moving to back to American isolationism of the 1930’s.  These same critics would have been better served considering Pat Buchanan’s vision of an America first policy when he ran for president later in the 20th Century.

“For the foreign policy routinely disparaged as ‘isolationism’ is always on the table. It is the foreign policy most deeply rooted in America’s history, heart and vital interests. … It is our oldest tradition,” Buchanan wrote.

“Though that tradition may be dismissed by our foreign policy elites as antiquated, selfish and un-idealistic, it is the elites who are out of touch. They do not know the country they live in. They do not know the American people. They never have.”

Soon, very soon, the Establishment must realize what U.S. workers and multinational corporations have learned about so-called free trade: It handicaps Americans.

Academics have found “there is now abundant evidence linking international trade to the decline of U.S. manufacturing jobs.” The 47-page paper suggests a “polarization effect,” where negative economic shock increases the election of both non-centrist left-wing and right-wing members of Congress.

“Voters are thus seeking answers to a common source of economic decline from very different types of political actors,” the paper says. One result is “China bashing” from Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders on the left.

Emerging nations have reportedly attacked foreign multinationals with fines, investigations, raids and closure. In addition, the expected fast­-growth revenue channels and inexpensive manufacturing opportunities from overseas globalization failed to materialize. This hurts U.S. investors and well as laborers. It only seems right that politicians who support “free trade” be held accountable.

If “… ending the theft of American jobs will give us resources we need to rebuild our military, which has to happen and regain our financial independence and strength,” sounds out-of-touch with pundits, think tanks and the rest of the Establishment, they should get to know the American people.

In 2015, the United States had $365.7 million trade deficit with China. The difference was$57 million through February of 2016.

“China respects strength and by letting them take advantage of us economically, which they are doing like never before, we have lost all of their respect,” Trump said. “We have a massive trade deficit with China, a deficit that we have to find a way quickly, and I mean quickly, to balance. A strong and smart America is an America that will find a better friend in China, better than we have right now.”

A fair trade policy, where trade partners are treated equally, might sale to American voters in 2016. It looks like Trump will find out.

Advertisements

Time to change basic political system

revolution1You say you want a revolution. It is neither the Constitution nor the institution, as John Lennon wrote; the real solution is changing the conscience of people with minds that hate.

The 2016 U.S. presidential campaign is a perfect example. The dialogue between Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Donald Trump has been light on policy but high on toxicity. Cruz and Trump have sunken so low their wives have been drawn into the fray.

Visitors to Washington, D.C., notice Congress and the White House are barricades.  So-called representatives are afraid of the public. They have distanced themselves so far, only big money interests are perceived to have access. Democrats and Republicans do not tackle problems. They refuse to work together. Leaders in the self-described conservative Senate refuse to hold hearings on the liberal president’s Supreme Court nominee because it is an election year. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution is ignored by these alleged constitutionalists.

The way President Barack Obama and a Democrat-controlled Congress rammed through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010 cost Democrats Congress, but won him reelection. The president has since attempted to bypass Congress through executive orders with dubious results.

So what should Americans do in 2016? Take Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) advice: Revolt! A quarter of Democratic voters have done this by voting for a Democratic-Socialist in caucuses and primaries. Democratic socialists reject capitalism as an economic system and want to replace it with state ownership of the means of production (i.e. the state owned factories, businesses, land, housing, and so on) combined with political democracy.

In the other corner sits Trump, a one-percenter who has supported Democratic-front runner Hillary Clinton, is pro-choice, is a ruthless businessman and has made some ridiculous statements on the stump such as banning Muslims and nuking ISIS. Does he want to be president or is Trump enjoying the game?

What the two have in common is anti-establishmentarianism. They recognize Washington does not work. U.S. trade agreements have cost workers and devastated blue-color labor. America’s infrastructure is ignored. The safety net needs adjustments. If America is at war, put it on the budget.

This revolution is not new. In 1996 and 2000 there was Pat Buchanan preaching much of foreign trade Sanders is preaching today. In 1992 Ross Perot warned of the national debt. In 1968 George Wallace warned the Democrat Party’s big tent was too big. All of these represent times in the past 50 years large groups of Americans could have split from the two parties and set the United States on a political system featuring proportional representation.

The basic principles underlying proportional representation elections are that all voters deserve representation and that all political groups in society deserve to be represented in our legislatures in proportion to their strength in the electorate.

Australia, Canada, most of Europe, Israel, and many other countries use this system. America should try it.