3 ms·

Can someone elaborate how pro-globalization speech can hurt her campaign? As far as I can see the leaks are not corruption evidence of some sort. Disclaimer I

Can someone elaborate how pro-globalization speech can hurt her campaign? As far as I can see the leaks are not corruption evidence of some sort. Disclaimer I'm away from politics and US.

douche 10y ago
There is a sizable chunk of the electorate for which globalization is as much a dirty word as populism is for another segment of it. It's not quite the same faultlines as the classic Slatestarcodex Blue and Red tribes, but it's the same principle
maxerickson 10y ago
There's strong anti trade sentiment in the US right now, with much of it being among people who are not especially partisan (so they are more likely to vote the issue rather than a party).
blisterpeanuts 10y ago
It's probably not the pro-trade stance so much as the spotlight that's on the $26 million she was paid for those speeches. It conveys the impression that she is beholden to Wall Street financial interests. It may not damage the Clinton campaign, though, because Trump's womanizing talk came out the same day and is attracting more attention. This election season has a scandal-of-the-week feel to it, and many Americans are looking forward to it being over already.
pdkl95 10y ago
There is a rapidly growing group of people that are tired of the status quo. They are reacting strongly against the neoliberal and technocratic establishment. To the very large masses of blue collar workers, globalism means watching their jobs move to cheaper markets. This is the environment where populist movements arise, which are not tied to traditional right/left politics. Hence the rise of populists like Trump, anti-establishment reactions like brexit, and a long list of similar movements that have been popping up around the world. For a good explanation of this (with charts!), see Mark Blyth's recent lecture[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkm2Vfj42FY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkm2Vfj42FY
dredmorbius 10y ago
The history of various trade pacts is that they've not much lived up to their promises. They're universally opposed by the rank-and-file of both the Democrat and Republican parties now. There are very strong arguments that what's holiding back economic potential and equality is not more itereations of NAFTA or WTO talks -- global import/export trade is already a phenomenal amount of all commerce. Price savings, where they're realised, seem to be based more on wage depression and raping the environment than real gains in per-worker prodictivity or comparative advantage. Worse, the current round of international agreements being shopped as "trade pacts" are far more in the style of power grabs for corporate and oligarchical interests, including ever more regressive copyright, trademark, and patent laws, a two-tier courts system through ISDS, and numerous actions which will raise prices through increased corporate profits rather than wages. There's a long list of economists and other experts opposed to the TPP, TTIP, BITS, and TiSA treaties, including Nobel Prize laureate Joseph Stiglitz, Tony Atkinson, former US Labour Secretary Robert Reich, and anti-poverty crusader Jeffrey Sachs, among many others. I've been making something of a sport of posting TPP and related items to my G+ profile over the past few months -- Google support the TPP. For tech issues, see the EFF's explainer: https://eff.org/issues/tpp https://eff.org/issues/tpp

Can someone elaborate how pro-globalization speech can hurt her campaign? As far as I can see the leaks are not corruption evidence of some sort. Disclaimer I'm away from politics and US.

douche 10y ago

There is a sizable chunk of the electorate for which globalization is as much a dirty word as populism is for another segment of it. It's not quite the same faultlines as the classic Slatestarcodex Blue and Red tribes, but it's the same principle

maxerickson 10y ago

There's strong anti trade sentiment in the US right now, with much of it being among people who are not especially partisan (so they are more likely to vote the issue rather than a party).

blisterpeanuts 10y ago

It's probably not the pro-trade stance so much as the spotlight that's on the $26 million she was paid for those speeches. It conveys the impression that she is beholden to Wall Street financial interests. It may not damage the Clinton campaign, though, because Trump's womanizing talk came out the same day and is attracting more attention. This election season has a scandal-of-the-week feel to it, and many Americans are looking forward to it being over already.

pdkl95 10y ago

There is a rapidly growing group of people that are tired of the status quo. They are reacting strongly against the neoliberal and technocratic establishment. To the very large masses of blue collar workers, globalism means watching their jobs move to cheaper markets. This is the environment where populist movements arise, which are not tied to traditional right/left politics. Hence the rise of populists like Trump, anti-establishment reactions like brexit, and a long list of similar movements that have been popping up around the world. For a good explanation of this (with charts!), see Mark Blyth's recent lecture[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkm2Vfj42FY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkm2Vfj42FY

dredmorbius 10y ago

The history of various trade pacts is that they've not much lived up to their promises. They're universally opposed by the rank-and-file of both the Democrat and Republican parties now. There are very strong arguments that what's holiding back economic potential and equality is not more itereations of NAFTA or WTO talks -- global import/export trade is already a phenomenal amount of all commerce. Price savings, where they're realised, seem to be based more on wage depression and raping the environment than real gains in per-worker prodictivity or comparative advantage. Worse, the current round of international agreements being shopped as "trade pacts" are far more in the style of power grabs for corporate and oligarchical interests, including ever more regressive copyright, trademark, and patent laws, a two-tier courts system through ISDS, and numerous actions which will raise prices through increased corporate profits rather than wages. There's a long list of economists and other experts opposed to the TPP, TTIP, BITS, and TiSA treaties, including Nobel Prize laureate Joseph Stiglitz, Tony Atkinson, former US Labour Secretary Robert Reich, and anti-poverty crusader Jeffrey Sachs, among many others. I've been making something of a sport of posting TPP and related items to my G+ profile over the past few months -- Google support the TPP. For tech issues, see the EFF's explainer: https://eff.org/issues/tpp https://eff.org/issues/tpp