As more bombastic speakers were rallying the conservative faithful at CPAC, a sparsely attended panel probed the state of international trade in America, explaining just how Trump managed to rewrite Republican orthodoxy and win over working class voters.
That had little to do with substantive arguments and everything to do with tone. One exchange between an economic populist and a pro-trade globalist encapsulated the entire talk.
A trained economist and president of the Taxpayer’s Protection Alliance, David Williams relied on sterile facts and figures to make the free market case. Global trade is a good thing, he argued, because opening up foreign markets creates lowers production costs and increases profits.
Serving up a veritable alphabet soup of examples, Williams argued, that the Trans-Pacific Partnership would generate $125 billion for the U.S. economy, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership would create another $300 billion and NAFTA was already producing $80 billion. He even suggested that NAFTA “saved the American auto industry because parts are just easier and cheaper to manufacture in Mexico.”
It was precise, academically rigorous and exactly the sort of thing Rust Belt voters would find unconvincing. And like Trump, liberal populist television host Ed Schultz immediately exploited that.
When Williams went specific, Schultz focused on approachable generalities. Lead anchor for RT News, the cable news channel owned by the Russian government, Schultz argued that every single international trade agreement was a non-starter.
“You can’t find one that’s [been] benefited anyone sitting around the kitchen table of the American worker,” Schultz replied. “Our jobs have been outsourced and shipped overseas, we’ve seen wage depression and layoffs because it’s just not a level playing field.”
Perhaps that sweeping statement isn’t born out in the economic record. It’s certainly more appealing to voters who increasingly feel forgotten and left behind by globalization, though.
Clearly, Williams is borne out by macroeconomic analysis. Until recently, it won over Republican brass, who’ve eagerly crafted policy to match.
But after eight years of uneven growth and chronic job loss among the low-skilled, it’s clear to recognize who won that back and forth. Voters just found Schultz’s populist explanation simpler, more relatable and ultimately more persuasive.
Philip Wegmann is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
