Hacker News Reader

Comment by timr | Hacker News Reader

That's silly. What's actually happening is far more nuanced and interesting: the parties have flipped.

For years, Democrats were generally aligned with labor, and broadly opposed to trade agreements -- remember that Hillary Clinton campaigned on rejecting the TPP [1], and it was unusual that Trump agreed with her, taking the issue away. Now, suddenly, the left is on the other side of the issue, because the current executive wants to restrict trade. It's nothing but realpolitik.

Also, not that long ago, it was the left that was advocating tariffs. For example, Obama in 2009 [2]. Admittedly nothing as sweeping or rushed as what is going on now, but still far from the party of free trade.

[1] https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/hillary-clinton-trade...

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32808731

View on HN

Current administration is not aligned with labor and poor people are the one who will pay the most.

It makes complete sense for the left to oppose this. And it is completely consistent with position of "i want these smart selective predictable tariffs". It would not be consistent with what is happening now

> Current administration is not aligned with labor and poor people are the one who will pay the most.

You might want to tell labor. I just listened to an hour-long podcast with the Teamsters leader, where he revealed that over half of their members supported Trump in the most recent election:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/why-unions-went-for-tr...

Ask them what they think now.

I was out of a job for 10 months until BBB was signed. I had 3 offers the next month.

This is NOT what i'm hearing from my unemployed friends.

Poor people voting against their own interest is a large base of the Republican party. It's usually some combination of religion, racism, and temporarily embarrassed millionaire thinking.

This predictable response to people doing what they think is best is so incredibly demeaning, infantilizing, and small-minded. Just because _you_ think somebody is voting against their own interest does not mean they are actually voting against their own interest.

The most virtuous of us do not vote their own interest first, but rather the interest of justice and morality. The assumption that people should or will vote their own interest first & always is what the kids these days seem to call "mid" and "basic".

Hiding hate behind "morality" is covered by religion

They dont do what they think is best. They want to harm people not like them, they are attracted to fraud and want affirmation of hierarchy that they think is advantage to them.

The infantilizing thing is constantly project positive motivations on people who do the opposite.

They were literally looking forward to cause harm, they just thought it will harm only liberals, trans, stupid feminists and well ... anyone not them.

They love his anti-trans crusade, they love his anti-eco crusade, they love he is sticking it to the libs. They find his sexual harasment issues to make him more true manly. None of that has anything to do with labor itself or economy. It has nothing to do with parties changing other then Republicans changing to more extreme right.

That being said, actual labor as in worked did not went for Republicans all that hard. It appears that way only if you restrict labor meaning to males of specific demographics.

It is not labor thing. It is gender resentment over not being on top of hierarchy thing.

Yes, and it boggles the mind as to why they did. Biden was quite the pro-worker president. Biden saved the Teamsters pension fund and then still the Teamsters officially wouldn't endorse him or Harris. To have your retirement rescued so spectacularly while the opposing party was throwing stones at it and then go on to vote for that opposing party who would have stopped that funding if they could... I just don't understand.

This simply isn't true.

Democrats still broadly align themselves with labor (the many people getting the stuff done)

Republicans still broadly align themselves with rich CEOs (the few people profiting off the backs of the labor).

It has been this way for at least 40 years.

Labor vs. Trade ≠ Tariffs vs. Free Trade — Democrats’ historic opposition to trade deals like NAFTA and the TPP was about protecting workers from job outsourcing and race-to-the-bottom standards. That’s not the same thing as imposing blanket tariffs as a blunt weapon in foreign policy. Conflating the two is lazy at best, dishonest at worst.

Obama’s 2009 tire tariffs were a narrow safeguard against China dumping, consistent with WTO rules, and widely viewed as a targeted response to an actual violation. That’s worlds apart from sweeping, across-the-board tariffs used as political theater.

And if it’s all “realpolitik” like you say, then your whole point collapses: by your logic, both parties shift based on circumstance — so stop pretending there’s some tidy ideological flip when the reality is far messier.

> Labor vs. Trade ≠ Tariffs vs. Free Trade — Democrats’ historic opposition to trade deals like NAFTA and the TPP was about protecting workers from job outsourcing and race-to-the-bottom standards.

OK, so we agree on the facts -- historically, the Democrats were aligned with labor, and opposed to trade. They had absolutely no qualms about opposing trade when they felt it was in their political interests to do so.

> Obama’s 2009 tire tariffs were a narrow safeguard against China dumping

I mean...you can attempt to diminish it in scale if you like, but the fact is that the left has historically been pro-labor and anti-trade, and the right has been pro-trade and anti-labor. Now the right controls the government, and they're clearly anti-trade.

They've flipped.

Your 1st source [https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/hillary-clinton-trade...] points out that many (myself included) contend Clinton was lying her face off to draw support away from those had felt burned by Democratic treatment of Bernie Sanders and his campaign.

Clinton was VOCIFEROUSLY pro-TPP for quite a while, and "changed" her stance as the race with Trump tightened. I believe she was a bald-faced liar.

The Clintons were ur-Third Way democrats. Financialization of the economy and globalization were the stock-in-trade (puns intended) of 1990s-2010s Democrats (at the Federal level) until Bernie came along.

No, the parties haven't flipped. Republicans and lobbyists just keep dragging the Overton window to the right and mainstream dems just follow along for most of the ride.

Biden, who actually walked a picket line, is probably among the most proworker presidents in American history (certainly in my lifetime) and that's sad because the bar is so low. Trump, and his litany of judges, are all very much anti-worker and pro big business. He is trying to dismantle the NLRB at their behest!

Yes, they have. I just gave you two documented examples, and I didn't try that hard to find them.

As far as Biden goes, you do realize that he didn't roll back the tariffs that Trump 1 put on China, right?

> Biden, who actually walked a picket line, is probably among the most proworker presidents in American history (certainly in my lifetime) and that's sad because the bar is so low.

I said, at the very top, that the Democrats were historically aligned with labor. They had no qualms about enacting trade barriers or opposing trade agreements in order to appease that constituency. It is only since -- well, this year, basically -- that they have become free trade evangelists.

It's realpolitik. Democrats see a wedge issue, and they're riling up the base to exploit it, regardless of the party's own historical actions.

These examples don't prove your point though, so they were easily countered. You even conceded this yourself when you admitted that Obama's tariffs were "nothing as sweeping or rushed as what is going on now".

I'm not sure who is arguing against ever using tariffs in general. Obama's, like Trump's tariffs against China, they were at least planned and somewhat targeted for a specific purpose. The argument against Trump's tariffs this time around has always been they are capricious.

> These examples don't prove your point though, so they were easily countered.

I guess I missed the part where you "countered" them. Saying "that's not true" is not an argument.

> You even gave up the point when admit Obama's tariffs were "nothing as sweeping or rushed as what is going on now".

I didn't "give up the point" -- I can admit when something is different in scale while still nothing the fundamental shift in historical stance.

Some more examples for you:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/13/politics/china-tariffs-biden-...

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/business/energy-environme...

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-steel-dumping-2014071...

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2017/0...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com