Publisher's Note — October 9, 2018, 11:53 am

Trading on Resentment

“The ‘free trade’ policies championed by US leaders from Reagan to Obama, most definitely including the Clintons, have produced many victims.”

A version of this column originally ran in Le Devoir on October 1, 2018. Translated from the French by John Cullen.

As the midterm elections approach, anger at Donald Trump is growing. Amplified by the conviction of Paul Manafort and the guilty plea of Michael Cohen, two of the president’s close advisers, the racket being raised by anti-Trump forces is reaching almost deafening levels. For voters opposed to the president, a clear Democratic victory on November 6 will mark the beginning of the end of the national nightmare: Robert Mueller’s investigation will continue and result in the dismissal of the crook currently installed in the White House.

But there are contradictions within the anti-Trump “resistance” that, although they may not help the Republicans retain a majority in the House of Representatives, run the risk of strengthening Trump’s support among a working class long ago abandoned by the Democratic Party. And those contradictions are shared, ironically enough, by elements of both the liberal left and the conservative right.

Our intellectual and electoral paradox pertains to some of the most vexing subjects, namely NAFTA, our trade relations with China, and the theology of “free trade” itself. On the left, we have the hysterical voice of Paul Krugman, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics and star op-ed columnist of the New York Times. In August, he suggested that Trump and his militant supporters were within striking distance of a virtually fascist takeover of the United States government: “We’re currently sitting on a knife edge. If we fall off it in the wrong direction—specifically, if Republicans retain control of both houses of Congress in November—we will become another Poland or Hungary faster than you can imagine.”

The “free trade” policies championed by US leaders from Reagan to Obama, most definitely including the Clintons, have produced many victims. Krugman is supposed to be on the side of ordinary people, but as far as he’s concerned, those victims are just plain villains: “Don’t tell me about ‘economic anxiety.’ That’s not what happened in Poland, which grew steadily through the financial crisis and its aftermath. And it’s not what happened here in 2016: Study after study has found that racial resentment, not economic distress, drove Trump voters.” This argument is extraordinarily and, in the end, blindly foolish. Krugman seems to reflect the catechism lessons of David Ricardo and Adam Smith from his university days. He can’t acknowledge that many thousands of former factory employees in key Midwestern states voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 and then opted for Trump in 2016. Unemployed or stagnating in badly paid jobs because much of American industry had relocated to low-wage Mexico and China, these same people also suffered after the 2008 financial crisis, which was partially caused by Bill Clinton’s deregulation of the financial sector. All racists, to be sure.

However, the Wall Street Journal, allegedly the ideological rival of Krugman and the Times, has been fiercely critical of the administration—despite Trump’s bias in favor of the rich—because of its attempts to establish a partial balance in the country’s enormous trade deficit by raising tariffs. An editorial dated August 28 expressed the Journal’s disgust for the “politically managed trade” in the American proposal of a new trade deal with Mexico to replace NAFTA, the current one. In order to retain the right to sell automobiles without tariffs in the US, the new deal stipulates that by 2023, forty percent of Mexican car parts must be manufactured by workers making a minimum of $16 an hour; the Journal finds this requirement particularly shocking and declares it “a political strategy to get a revised deal through Congress,” with provisions “that go far to imposing US-style labor laws on Mexico.” The horror! A possible raise in income for Mexican workers that could also benefit American trade unions!

A month later, the deal was superseded by the proposed new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which applied the requirement of forty percent of parts and $16 an hour to Canada as well. In fact, such things have never before been part of trade negotiations. Usually, discussions of this type concern the best ways to protect private assets and exploit cheap labor. It seems that, to please the Democrats, the pure-blooded Republican Robert Lighthizer, the United States Trade Representative, has become a leftist. The height of betrayal; friends don’t do that to one another.

But what’s amiss in this scenario is that Krugman, a liberal economist and a spokesman for the Clinton-Obama faction, is more or less in agreement with the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. During a conference at UNAM, the National Autonomous University of Mexico, in October 2017, Krugman called NAFTA “a partial success.” But here’s the essential part of his remarks: “If you ask if there was something wrong [or say that] there was a significant error in the treaty that should be fixed—in reality, I don’t see it, because that is the commitment of a free trade agreement…[It’s] not the salaries, because we can’t make salary demands in Canada or Mexico without destroying exports…”

My God, that’s rubbish. NAFTA is largely an investment compact that allows United States companies to manufacture goods cheaply in Mexico with protection from expropriation, political harassment, and labor strikes. It’s the United States that leads the dance, runs the show, dictates almost everything. And then there’s Donald Trump, enemy of the people and notorious double-dealer, successfully presenting the elites of the Democratic Party and the press as the real enemies of the people. A very bad omen indeed.

Share
Single Page

More from John R. MacArthur:

Publisher's Note December 10, 2018, 3:23 pm

A New Day?

“The Democratic Party is best understood as an assemblage of baronies, the three most important of which—California, New York, and Illinois—dole out the most patronage and political favors in return for filling the party’s coffers and guaranteeing the reelection of its most cherished adherents.”

Publisher's Note November 3, 2018, 12:02 am

All Bets Are Off

“I recommend neither the assertions of journalists and pollsters nor big headlines about terror attacks, murders, or caravans of desperate people as a basis for predicting the outcome of the midterm elections.”

Publisher's Note August 21, 2018, 1:53 pm

The Illusion Train

“French ‘solidarity’ was looking decidedly less solid than it had the previous day.”

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

January 2019

Machine Politics

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Polar Light

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Donald Trump Is a Good President

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Resistances

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Long Shot

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Machine Politics·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“The Goliath of totalitarianism will be brought down by the David of the microchip,” Ronald Reagan said in 1989. He was speaking to a thousand British notables in London’s historic Guildhall, several months before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Reagan proclaimed that the world was on the precipice of “a new era in human history,” one that would bring “peace and freedom for all.” Communism was crumbling, just as fascism had before it. Liberal democracies would soon encircle the globe, thanks to the innovations of Silicon Valley. “I believe,” he said, “that more than armies, more than diplomacy, more than the best intentions of democratic nations, the communications revolution will be the greatest force for the advancement of human freedom the world has ever seen.”

At the time, most everyone thought Reagan was right. The twentieth century had been dominated by media that delivered the same material to millions of people at the same time—radio and newspapers, movies and television. These were the kinds of one-to-many, top-down mass media that Orwell’s Big Brother had used to stay in power. Now, however, Americans were catching sight of the internet. They believed that it would do what earlier media could not: it would allow people to speak for themselves, directly to one another, around the world. “True personalization is now upon us,” wrote MIT professor Nicholas Negroponte in his 1995 bestseller Being Digital. Corporations, industries, and even whole nations would soon be transformed as centralized authorities were demolished. Hierarchies would dissolve and peer-to-peer collaborations would take their place. “Like a force of nature,” wrote Negroponte, “the digital age cannot be denied or stopped.”

Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Article
Long Shot·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Ihave had many names, but as a sniper I went by Azad, which means “free” or “freedom” in Kurdish. I had been fighting for sixteen months in Kurdish territory in northern Syria when in April 2015 I was asked to leave my position on the eastern front, close to the Turkish border, and join an advance on our southwestern one. Eight months earlier, we had been down to our last few hundred yards, and, outnumbered five to one, had made a last stand in Kobanî. In January, after more than four months of fighting street-to-street and room-by-room, we recaptured the town and reversed what was, until then, an unstoppable jihadi tide. In the battles since, we had pushed ­ISIS far enough in every direction that crossing our territory was no longer a short dash through the streets but a five-hour drive across open country. As we set out to the north, I could make out the snowy peaks in southern Turkey where they say Noah once beached his ark. Below them, rolling toward us, were the wide, grassy valleys and pine forests of Mesopotamia, the land between the Euphrates and the Tigris where our people have lived for twelve thousand years.

The story of my people is filled with bitter ironies. The Kurds are one of the world’s oldest peoples and, as pioneers of agriculture, were once among its most advanced. Though the rest of the world now largely overlooks that it was Kurds who were among the first to create a civilization, the evidence is there. In 1995, German archaeologists began excavating a temple at Göbekli Tepe in northern Kurdistan. They found a structure flanked by stone pillars carved with bulls, foxes, and cranes, which they dated to around 10,000 bce. At the end of the last Ice Age, and seven thousand years before the erection of Stonehenge or the pyramids at Giza, my ancestors were living together as shamans, artists, farmers, and engineers.

Fighters of the YJA-STAR, the women’s force in the PKK, Sinjar, Iraq, November 2015 (detail)
Article
Polar Light·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

To get oriented here is difficult. The light is flat because the sky is overcast. The sun’s weak rays create only a few anemic shadows by which to judge scale and distance. Far-off objects like mountain peaks have crisp edges because the atmosphere itself is as transparent as first-water diamonds, but the mountains are not nearly as close as they seem. It’s about negative-twelve degrees Fahrenheit, but the wind is relatively calm, moving over the snow distractedly, like an animal scampering.

[caption id="attachment_271890" align="aligncenter" width="690"]True-color satellite image of Earth centered on the South Pole during winter solstice © Planet Observer/Universal Images Group/Getty Images. True-color satellite image of Earth centered on the South Pole during winter solstice © Planet Observer/Universal Images Group/Getty Images.[/caption]

Four of the six people living here are in their tents now, next to their cookstoves, two by two, warming up and preparing their suppers. I’m the fifth of the group, almost motionless at the moment, a hundred yards south of the tent cluster, kneeling on a patch of bluish ice in the midst of a great expanse of white. I’m trying to discern a small object entombed there a few inches below the surface. Against the porcelain whites of this gently sloping landscape, I must appear starkly apparent in my cobalt blue parka and wind pants. I shift slowly right and left, lean slightly forward, then settle back, trying to get the fluxless sunlight to reveal more of the shape and texture of the object.

A multiple-exposure photograph (detail) taken every hour from 1:30 pm on December 8, 1965, to 10:10 am on December 9, 1965, showing the sun in its orbit above the South Pole, Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station © Georg Gerster/Panos Pictures
Article
Donald Trump Is a Good President·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In all sincerity, I like Americans a lot; I’ve met many lovely people in the United States, and I empathize with the shame many Americans (and not only “New York intellectuals”) feel at having such an appalling clown for a leader.

However, I have to ask—and I know what I’m requesting isn’t easy for you—that you consider things for a moment from a non-American point of view. I don’t mean “from a French point of view,” which would be asking too much; let’s say, “from the point of view of the rest of the world.”On the numerous occasions when I’ve been questioned about Donald Trump’s election, I’ve replied that I don’t give a shit. France isn’t Wyoming or Arkansas. France is an independent country, more or less, and will become totally independent once again when the European Union is dissolved (the sooner, the better).

Illustration (detail) by Ricardo Martínez
Article
Resistances·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The prepositions you’re most likely to encounter after the title of a poem are “for” or “to” and sometimes “after”—“for my daughter”; “to Bobby”; “after Pound”; etc. They signify dedication, address, homage, imitation. In the recent poems of Fred Moten, we encounter “with,” a preposition that denotes accompaniment. The little difference makes a big difference, emphasizing collaboration over the economy of the gift, suggesting that the poet and his company are fellow travelers, in the same time zone, alongside each other in the present tense of composition. (Given Moten’s acclaimed critical work on jazz, the “with” is immediately evocative of musical performance, e.g., “Miles Davis with Sonny Rollins.”) Not all “withs” are the same—there is a different intimacy in the poem “fifty little springs,” which is “with aviva,” Moten’s wife’s Hebrew name (which means springtime), than there is in “resistances,” which is “with” a critic and an artist, interlocutors of Moten’s. (The poem “13. southern pear trees” has no preposition after the title, but is excerpted from another responding to the work of Zoe Leonard, and so is still a work of fellowship.) The scale of that “with” can be small (“with aviva, as if we were all alone”) or vast (“with everybody we don’t know”), but either way the poem becomes an instance of alongsidedness instead of belatedness; the poems request, with that subtle prepositional shift, that we think of ourselves as participants in the production of meaning and not mere recipients of someone else’s eloquence.

“Untitled,” 1989, by Zoe Leonard © Zoe Leonard (detail)

Estimated number of times in the Fall of 1990 that George Bush told a joke about his dog asking for a wine list with her Alpo:

10

French researchers reported that 52 percent of young women exposed to Francis Cabrel’s ballad “Je l’aime à mourir” gave their phone numbers to an average-looking young man who hit on them, whereas only 28 percent of those exposed to Vincent Delerm’s “L’heure du thé” did so.

Migrant children were teargassed; carbon dioxide levels have reached three to five million year high; missionary killed by remote tribe

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today