America's massive trade deficit: Why BIG tariffs won't hurt the United States

[pampango]

144. And yet they have strong and widespread unions and a strong middle class.

Do you have a theory on why unions and the middle class prosper in such countries in spite of their lack of the relevant legislation?

Smooth Hawley did not hamper the recovery. The facts show this.
Smooth Hawley did not hamper the recovery. The facts show this.
Smooth Hawley did not hamper the recovery. The facts show this.

From my post which you were responding to:

"I think you and I actually agree that S/H did not had little if anything to do with the Depression. It had started already and was caused by other republican policies like deregulation of the financial industry and Wall Street. I think you agree that FDR believed (erroneously in your opinion) that, regardless of the insignificant role that S/H played in causing the Depression, high tariffs would make economic recovery more difficult so he worked to lower tariffs."

You seem hung up on proving that FDR was wrong (and perhaps coincidentally that the republicans and Chamber of Commerce of the day were right) in his conviction that high tariffs impeded our economic recovery. If I stipulate that FDR was wrong about this and you are right, can we move on? Do you have an opinion on why the republican high tariff bills of 1921 and 1922 did not create a prosperous middle class and equitable distribution of income?

Yes, it is us versus them. - Thank you for putting it so clearly. The "us vs. them" strategy is a popular everywhere. Always has been and probably always will be. I thought it was primarily used by the other side of the political spectrum in the US.

By definition, of course, every group creates “Them”— they are all the ones who are not in our group.

But most groups have some set of outsiders—some particular slice of the vast population that is “them” –that serves a very special symbolic function in their cosmos. These are members of other groups that believe things or advocate things that our group opposes. They are the enemy.

We take “us and them” for granted and fail to reflect upon the terrible political implications for everybody when groups are not playing nice together. Throughout history, political elites have manipulated social groups to achieve and maintain power. ... And in the last two generations Republicans have masterfully used wedge politics-- pitting us against them -- to gain and keep power and to implement policies that a clear majority of the populace dislikes, but apparently cannot find any effective way to change.

Although we live in an irreducibly pluralistic world, we have yet to learn how to function as a pluralistic democracy. Sadly, even those of us who belong to groups that are pledged to tolerance and inclusiveness can drop the ball as readily as those who are self-consciously exclusive.

http://www.alternet.org/belief/us-vs-them-simple-recipe-prevent-strong-society-forming?paging=off

A competing philosophy - "We are all in this together" has received some mention in speeches at the DNC this week.

I suppose that an "us vs. them" (UVT) philosophy that is based on nationalism is considered by some to be a 'good' form of UVT (indeed a form of patriotism), while ones based on race, gender, ethnicity, national-origin or sexual orientation would definitely be "bad" forms of UVT, at least from a liberal point of view (though certainly not from a conservative one).

Of course a person is born with a particular nationality just as he or she is born a certain race, gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. Any form of UVT based on a birth characteristic is questionable at best - outside of, as you say, our family whom we would all go out of our way to protect.

Perhaps the answer to that is that there must be SOME way of dividing humans on the globe up so that we can protect "us" from "them" and nationality is the only criteria left that is acceptable in liberal circles. If the 300,000,000 people in the US were the entire population of the globe would we be one big, happy family (other than the 99% vs the 1%) or is an UVT based on the 'geography of birth' so strong that 'we' Ohioan would start being very suspicious of 'them' Californians? Since 'nationalism' would not matter any more, perhaps not.