seeking to build their own power by scapegoating others."
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/35655-the-american-fascist
"Trump's populism" is resonating and will do so in the general election campaign as well. There is indeed "a lot of anger out there" among "middle class whites" in Trump's camp and across the spectrum in Bernie's camp. As is often pointed out, Trump is very skilled at playing to that anger and fear by offering up scapegoats and macho, nationalistic rhetoric rather than viable solutions. I agree that he will be a formidable election opponent for precisely this reason. He is very good at the traditional republican tactic of motivating voters by playing to fear and hate.
Actually, a bit of background: establishment Republicans may talk free trade, but they are if anything more protectionist than Democrats in practice (although neither party is seriously protectionist these days.) Remember, it was Bush, not a Democrat, who imposed a WTO-illegal steel tariff, then had to back down in the face of European pressure. And going back, remember that Reagan, not Carter, imposed import quotas on Japanese cars.
The reason for this difference, I think, is twofold. First, Republicans are much less respectful of international obligations; it took a while for the Bushies to realize that trade rules apply to us, too, and that the EU is as big a trade superpower as we are. Second, there’s a level of cynicism, of willingness to play politics with foreign affairs, on one side that isn’t matched on the other.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/republicans-and-trade-wars/
Going back even further historically than Krugman did, it was Coolidge and Hoover who built a huuuuge tariff wall in the 1920's and FDR who tore it down in the 1930's, eventually replacing it with multilateral control of trade.
The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to do anything much about globalization — not because it’s technically or economically impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. ...
Trump might actually do it, but only as part of a reign of destruction on many fronts.
But it is fair to say that the case for more trade agreements — including TPP, which hasn’t happened yet — is very, very weak. And if a progressive makes it to the White House, he or she should devote no political capital whatsoever to such things.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/a-protectionist-moment/?_r=0
= new reply since forum marked as read