Trump Supporters See His Image in Their Mirrors

Vijay K. Mathur

Many in the media are appalled at the derogatory remarks GOP presidential presumptive nominee Donald Trump makes against Hillary Clinton, former President Clinton, women, and many ethnic and racial groups of Americans. However, I wonder if they have seriously examined the underlying views of Trump’s Republican supporters. It appears that Trump is reflecting the views of his electorate and political supporters about the rest of the American society. Perhaps we should not blame Trump for his foul, derogatory and unpresidential language against people and groups he does not like and who are critical of his views. Conceivably the blame lies with his cheering section.

During the 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy initiated a witch hunt for communists in the federal government and among Americans in all walks of life. It had gone unnoticed for some time by most responsible observers. But finally a courageous anchor newsman, Edward R. Murrow, in March 1954, exposed the Senator’s attempt to humiliate many honorable Americans and to damage freedom of expression and activity enjoyed by all Americans.

One of the most memorable statements Murrow made in support of his case against Senator McCarthy’s tactics and quoted by David Sheldon of Poynter, was, “He didn’t create his situation of fear, he merely exploited it—rather successfully. Cassius was right. ‘The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.’” The same situation is applicable in Trump’s presidential campaign. He is thriving on the fear, anger and suspicion of government of his supporters. Hence, it is time for them to look at themselves in the mirror, to consciously and cognitively examine who is exploiting whom. If they look carefully they may realize that Trump is not interested in their well-being but rather in his own lust for power and promotion of his brand.

Trump is also exploiting polarization of the electorate based on rumors he spreads in the news media. Experimental evidence reported by Cass R. Sunstein, in On Rumors, shows that internal group deliberations further strengthen members’ belief in rumors. Trump’s rumors, such as Muslims celebrated 9/11 attack on World Trade Center, Mexicans are rapists and murderers, Vince Foster may have been murdered during President Clinton’s administration, Senator Cruz’ father’s hand in JFK assassination, and Hillary Clinton desires to repeal Second Amendment are ignored by his supporters in his quest for the presidency.

Such rumors breed suspicion and even contempt against various ethnic and demographic groups and even against other presidential candidates who are supported by those groups. As psychologist Daniel Kahneman, former Nobel Laureate in Economics, states in Thinking Fast And Slow, “A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.” Mr. Trump takes pride in his skills in marketing and branding but not in policies. Policies are left for the experts.

What about the media’s role in Trump’s campaign? Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson in Winner-Take-All Politics are of the view that news media are not helping voters by providing vital and reliable information on the candidates and their policies.

“The erosion of traditional interest organizations has meant that for many voters, the media are the only regular source of political information... Even hard news consists mostly of dueling sound bites. Efforts to analyze the veracity or relevance of these claims, or place them in context, are either left to the end or left out altogether.”

These remarks are especially applicable to most television news. The Internet has not filled that gap either. In fact, the Internet has contributed to the speed and durability of rumors.

Why have Trump supporters, and presumably responsible Republican politicians, forgotten their basic principles of Republicanism and are supporting Trump? Speaker of the House Paul Ryan emphasizes conservative principles such as “big tent,” smaller government, and entitlement reform every time he gets the opportunity before the media; but even he is wavering in his principles and hinting tacit support for Trump’s presidency. Is it conceivable that many of Trump’s supporters secretly believe in what Trump is overtly saying, zeroing in on his supporters’ inner thoughts, such as fear of immigrants, minorities, off-shoring of businesses, China’s unfair trade practices and loss of respect for America in the world?

According to Tax Foundation, October 2012, 60 percent of households now receive more federal transfer income than they pay in taxes. Obviously the Republican Congress has not been very faithful to its principle of small government. The Republican electorate in Southern states also does not practice its explicitly expressed concern about big government. Out of the top ten states receiving disability benefits under SSDI, seven are in the South.

Trump’s contemptible inflammatory language, and his vindictiveness against those who do not agree with his ever changing inconsistent policies and statements is a reflection of the cognitive dissonance of his supporters. It is time for his supporters and Republican politicians to look at themselves in the mirror and find their true self and not Trump’s image.

Mathur is former chair and professor of economics, and now professor emeritus, Department of Economics, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio. He resides in Ogden, Utah.

Targeting Trade and Trade Pacts for Job Losses is Counter Productive in Presidential Campaigns

Vijay K. Mathur

Presidential candidates, particularly Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, have started this myth among Americans that their economic hardships are due to trade pacts like NAFTA and recently negotiated with 11 countries, not yet implemented, Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).  TPP would reduce tariffs and other trade barriers within the block that controls 40 percent of world trade.  This rhetoric against trade and trade pacts sounds as if these candidates are adopting a more protectionist posture.

US exports during 2000-2015 grew at the average rate of 5 percent per year, more than the average import growth rate of 4 percent per year.  In 2015 the US exports of goods and services were $2.2 trillion and imports were $2.7 trillion, creating a trade imbalance of $0.5 trillion.  However, this trade deficit is only 3 percent of our GDP, hardly the sign of economic distress portrayed by these presidential candidates. 

In regard to international trade accounts, these candidates, especially businessman Donald Trump, should know that there are two major flows in the balance of payments that matter to a country.  Trade account lists trade in goods and services, and capital account lists financial flows.  If there is a deficit in trade account, it is balanced by surplus in capital account (financial flows).   According to National Bureau of Economic Research (www.nber.org), “Foreigners invest an average of over  $5 billion in the United States every day…", a significant share of the GDP.  The US is one of the top investment destinations in the world.  Investment provides capital, creates employment, and increases productivity and wages of labor.  Growth in export sector also benefits import-competing industries and intermediate goods industries in the supply chain.  

A White House report in October 2013 states that in 2011 US affiliates of foreign countries employed 5.9 million people in the private sector, about 4.1 percent of total employment.   Kevin Zhang’s research in Contemporary Economic Policy, October 2010, shows for a cross-section of 87 countries/regions that foreign direct investment and trade strengthens industrial competiveness. Creating fear of trade and trade pacts diverts attention from areas of policy that demand more attention to create more jobs in the future.  More attention should be paid to emerging skill-biased technologies, causing job losses for certain skills, especially in the manufacturing sector.

Research by MIT Professor David Autor for The Hamilton Project, April 2010, shows that skill-biased technical change is the major source of job polarization. It is increasingly replacing and off-shoring middle-skill labor performing routine tasks. The well-defined routine tasks can be performed either by computer programs and/or low skill labor with minimal guidance.  However, demand for non-routine jobs that require high-level skills, abstract thinking and creativity have been increasing.  Low skill level service jobs are also rising in the US. 

This job polarization is causing wage polarization where wages for high skill occupations are rising with contraction in middle- skilled and low-skilled occupations.  Research by Maarten Goos, Alan Manning and Anna Salomons, American Economic Review, August 2014, shows similar job polarization in 16 Western European countries. This age of globalization requires resources and deliberate actions to upgrade skills to complement new technologies.

It makes more sense for presidential candidates to come up with a comprehensive plan to meet the challenges posed by new technologies rather than blaming foreign low wage countries for selling goods and services in the US at lower prices.  As long as these countries’ markets are open, they do not engage in unfair trade practices and manipulation of exchange rates, American businesses and labor have to learn to compete in the world market.  Unfair trade practices and exchange rate manipulation require actions within the framework of the rules of World Trade Organization (WTO) and International Monetary Fund (IMF), not protectionist policies. In a free trade environment, US business and labor have to implement cooperative strategies to meet competitive trade and technological challenges.  Increasing business profits at the cost of reduction in wage share is a losing proposition in the long run for both parties and the nation.    

Policy makers in cooperation with businesses and labor have to implement education and training programs on a macro scale on an ongoing basis to generate skilled manpower that complements emerging technologies.  Protectionism will lead to a downward spiral of economic activity in the US and in the rest of the world, because it will be an excuse for other countries to engage in protectionist policies, thereby shrinking trade and growth in all economies.  As Paul Krugman notes in his book Pop Internationalism (1996) “…international trade, unlike competition among businesses for a limited market, is not a zero sum game…”

I hope our presidential candidates are aware of the lesson of the Great Depression when President Hoover signed the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930. By 1932, sixty countries retaliated by increasing their tariffs. That led to the collapse of world trade and deepening of worldwide depression.

Mathur is former chair and professor of economics and professor emeritus, Department of Economics, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio. He blogs for Huffington Post.  He resides in Ogden, Utah.