3 ms·

It's a little too pat as "Democrats got what they deserved". It also ignores the shift of the political landscape toward the right and dismissing it as "whether

It's a little too pat as "Democrats got what they deserved". It also ignores the shift of the political landscape toward the right and dismissing it as "whether it was politically expedient etc." is just flat out ignoring political history. It also ignores that there are net economic gains that could benefit everyone in society. You don't get to look at economic history and ignore political history because it fits your narrative. It's not honest and is only done to score political argument points. The problem isn't free trade itself, it's how the benefits should be distributed.

guelo 9y ago
You don't know if your cause and effect is backwards, maybe the electorate shifted to the right because the Democrats shifted to the right, no one was advocating the ideas of the left anymore. As far as how the benefits should be distributed, the Democrats completely gave up on trying to do any redistribution of wealth, Clinton pushed through the biggest welfare cuts in a generation and criminalized the poor. It didn't take a magic ball to figure out who was going to benefit from free trade.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > As far as how the benefits should be distributed, the Democrats completely gave up on trying to do any redistribution of wealth The neoliberal faction (Clinton's Third Way) has never been the whole of the party (even in government—many of the neoliberal policies Clinton pushed through or followed Congress on were opposed by most Democrats in Congress but supported by Republicans.) And the neoliberal faction's dominance of the party has been waning over the last several years.