The 2016 election has been described as showing signs of a political realignment: many white, working class Democrats, particularly in the Midwest and Northeast, crossed over and voted for Trump, while more educated, affluent white Republicans in major cities and suburbs defected and voted for Clinton. For years, both parties had championed the idea of free trade. Democratic President Bill Clinton had negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement, and President Barack Obama had been working with Republican leaders in Congress to advance the Trans Pacific Partnership. But the 2016 election marked a key turning point in the bipartisan consensus on international trade.
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, well known for his free market views, strongly supported this trade pact, saying in 2015, “Look, I think the President on this particular issue is right and therefore I think this is good for our country, good for the people I represent. Trade is very important for America—it’s how we get more jobs”. However, when President Trump pulled the United States out of the TPP, Ryan praised the move, saying, “He has followed through on his promise to insist on better trade agreements.” Ryan’s shifted stance is evidence of a larger demographic change in the Republican Party. President Obama’s advocacy for the TPP and Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump’s dominance over the political conversation in 2016 made international trade into a far more salient issue. This newly charged issue strongly divided both political parties, resulting in voter shifts in the election and policy shifts by the two major parties afterwards. This could have serious implications for 2018 and 2020.
A Change in Voting Patterns
As Obama worked with Republican congressional leaders in 2015 to pass fast-track legislation for the TPP, grassroots opposition arose on both the right and the left, threatening incumbent congressmen who supported the deal. Bernie Sanders, seeking support in the Midwest, capitalized on this anti-trade sentiment, making his opposition to TPP one of the defining issues of his candidacy against Hillary Clinton. Trump also greatly emphasized his protectionist stances, using them to differentiate himself from his primary opponents. By constantly focusing on the negative effects of free trade deals, Trump and Sanders ultimately raised the salience of trade as an issue for voters. As a result, 57 percent of voters in 2016 saw trade as a “very important” issue for deciding their vote. To put this number in context, only 45 percent of voters saw the hot button issue of abortion as very important.
As a newly important matter for voters, trade divided both parties and ultimately caused major realignments in 2016. White working class voters in northern states voted more Republican in 2016 than 2012 by a 10 point margin, while whites with a bachelor’s degree voted four points more Democratic, and whites with a postgraduate degree voted 17 points more Democratic. The issue of trade had been dividing both parties in the run up to the election; a May 2015 poll showed that Democrats believed trade deals personally helped them 42 percent to 37 percent, while Republicans were split 39-39. This issue broke down largely along educational lines. Voters with a college degree believed 51-27 that these deals were personally helpful, while voters with only high school diplomas believed 44-37 that these deals were personally harmful.
Interestingly, a poll of white working class Democrats found that 40 percent believed the US should take a more aggressive stance towards China on economic issues, and 39 percent believed free trade does more harm than good. This helps to account for Trump’s win. By focusing heavily on trade, campaigning on economic nationalism, and talking less about traditional Republican issues like entitlement reform and gay marriage, Trump developed a message that could better resonate with blue collar whites and allow him to peel off Democratic votes. Economic nationalism is traditionally defined as the practice of reducing imports and foreign investment. But Trump took this abstract concept and applied it to economic issues, ultimately transforming it into a broader cultural backlash against globalization, tapping into voters’ nostalgia for good-paying manufacturing jobs, particularly in the coal and steel industries.
Even though Clinton eventually announced her opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership, her record on trade was mixed. Her husband had signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and she had endorsed this pact multiple times throughout the years. Hillary also had previously supported TPP, referring to it as “the gold standard”, and she had been recorded expressing pro-globalization sentiments during the 2016 campaign. Trump, promising to cancel NAFTA and the TPP, was the more protectionist of the two candidates. As a result, he won voters who believed trade took jobs away from the US 64-32, and Clinton won voters who believed trade creates US jobs 59-35. Overall, 42 percent of voters believed that trade costs jobs, while 39 percent believed that trade creates jobs, so this issue broke slightly to Trump’s advantage.
Party Leaders Follow Their Voters
In the wake of 2016, formerly pro-trade Republicans in Congress have signed on to Trump’s economic nationalism. Speaker Paul Ryan has even recently advocated for a border adjustment tax on goods coming into the US. Meanwhile, when voting on Trump’s trade ambassador, Senate Republicans voted 46-6 to confirm Robert Lighthizer, who has been highly critical of NAFTA.
Furthermore, the Democratic leadership has taken much clearer steps to align itself with protectionist views, seeking to win back working class Trump voters. President Obama had pushed hard for the passage of the TPP, and in the 2016 election, the Democratic Party’s platform was neutral on the TPP, respecting a “diversity of views” on the topic. But in recent months, the Democratic Party leadership, guided by their Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, has largely abandoned this ambiguity on trade. Schumer has spoken critically of the Chinese’s trade practices, has called on Trump to take more aggressive action on trade than simply withdrawing from the TPP, and has expressed an eagerness to work with Trump to fulfill his campaign promises on this issue. Also, Schumer’s Better Deal agenda mentions cracking down on unfair trade practices of other countries and restricting outsourcing. This agenda also focuses on renegotiating NAFTA, a key part of Trump’s agenda, so that workers get a seat at the table to craft stronger labor standards. Senate Democrats have additionally introduced Buy American legislation, which has even earned the endorsement of Trump.
What to Expect for 2018 and Beyond
As both parties have become more skeptical of free trade, the issue seems to have died down since the election. The topic is simply no longer as divisive as it was in 2016, and so other more hot button issues like immigration and Obamacare have risen to the forefront instead. Heading into 2018, we can expect candidates of both parties to express skepticism towards free trade deals and to emphasize their support for American manufacturers. It also seems hard to envision a 2020 Democratic candidate who is openly supportive of broad trade accords or who has a history of supporting them. With the newfound bipartisan consensus that has arisen in favor of more regulations on trade, it seems likely that protectionist views will dominate without contention on Capital Hill, at least for the near future.
Image Credit: Flickr/Backbone Campaign