Way back in early 2017, I warned in an interview that Trump would be a big spender (sadly, I was right). But I wasn’t being reflexively anti-Trump.
Here’s a clip from that same program where I speculated that Trump might have the political skill to win support from private-sector union workers.
In honor of Labor Day, let’s elaborate on this topic.
I’ll start with the political observation that Trump seems to do much better than other Republicans at getting support from working-class voters. Even workers who belong to unions (much to the dismay of their left-leaning leadership) appear to be disproportionately sympathetic.
Though it’s important to emphasize, as I said in the interview, the distinction between government bureaucrat unions and private-sector unions.
The unions that represent government employees have an incentive to lobby for bigger government since that means more lavishly paid members paying more dues. So those unions reflexively support higher taxes, more spending, and additional red tape.
Yet those are the policies that undermine private-sector job creation and reduce the competitiveness of companies operating in America. And that’s bad for all private workers – including those that belong to unions.
Which is why I speculated in the interview whether Trump would have the “political cunning” to convince those private-sector union members that their interests are not the same as those of bureaucrats.
I guess we’ll see on election day.
By the way, I have very mixed feelings on Trump’s strategy. Some of his policies are good (lower taxes and less red tap), but he also tries to appeal to union workers with policies that are bad (most notably, protectionism).
P.S. Feel free to enjoy some good cartoons mocking unionized bureaucrats by clicking here, here, here, and here.
P.P.S. I often tell my Republican friends that they’ll have more success appealing to private-sector union members if they come across as pro-market (which implies neutrality between employers and employees) rather than pro-business (which implies siding with employers).
International Liberty 
[…] […]
Reblogged this on Boudica BPI Weblog.
Typical kleptocracy musical chairs approach. I’ll stick with Libertarian spoiler votes.
Daniel, I am a long-time subscriber. I remain stymied by your advocacy of free-trade policy by America, while our trading partners (China, EU) tariff the heck out of our exports to their countries. I read all the links on your blog, about the evils of protectionism. You say that Donald Trump doesn’t understand 19th century economist David Ricardo.
Please, tell me if I understand your evidence-based case for free trade? You acknowledge that China steals US intellectual property, manipulates its US-dollar pegged fixed-rate currency as a mercantilist weapon, and uses PRC state-funded companies (in lots of industries) to unfairly compete with US private enterprise. However, you defend China, India et al despite their protectionist policies, by saying that free trade helps the citizens of these developing nations to rise out of poverty. What about US citizens?! Why should the well-being and future prosperity of Americans be sacrificed to the developing world?
You do advocate for more bilateral trade agreements, which is a good move, in the interest of truly FAIR trade. However, you criticize Trump because he doesn’t want to depend on the WTO (World Trade Organization) to enforce free AND fair trade practices on the many nations with whom the USA currently has highly asymmetric import/export levies. Supranational entities such as the WTO do not have a great record of enforcement. The WTO resembles the EU and UN, mostly denigrating the US for being imperialist or racist, rather than taking action to ensure that our best-interests are served through Chinese, Indian, Canadian, and EU compliance with fair trade agreements.
Let’s forget about trade deficits, as I know that you don’t believe they are useful signifiers. Instead, how do you justify the fact that the US allows German automobile manufacturers to have unencumbered access to US domestic purchasing markets, while Germany imposes 20% (maybe 40%) tariffs on American vehicle manufacturers who want to sell cars in Germany?