Points of View

        I asked an acquaintance, an ardent Trump supporter, to provide some examples of what the current POTUS had done so far to make America better, never mind “Great Again. In my original question I also mentioned Trump’s race “issues.” 

       This person alleges that Trump has been subjected to more negative criticism than “any other President.” As a historian I let that drop, knowing better, but time constrained. I ended by pointing out that much of what is said about the current POTUS is direct response to his specific actions or, more to the point, his own controversial “tweets.” I then posed the question “What did Barack Obama do or say to precipitate the landslide of negativity he got from the far Right?

Here, edited only for brevity or clarity is the response:

________________________________________

        “He became the President. Again, you generalize the people and you really don't know me as a person as you keep say you in all your statements. (sic) You weren't there for the many thing you say he's accused of doing you do the same as every other liberal, you watch the news and only bring up Obama. I never brought up the things he did like give the Mexican Cartels M 16 rifles that all the idiot liberals call assault rifles and don't even know what AR stands for. I don't give a damn what freaking color the skin is I told you before I was raised by a colored (sic) Lady through my teen years lived in Brownsville Brooklyn, NY and know racism comes from both sides of the fence and Obama did to race relations just what your (sic)) doing caused more hate and dissension between whites and all other races with just what you do and say in your posts.”  (?)

________________________________________

   

       Again, apparently by his existence, with no other overt examples, Barack Obama destroyed race relations in America. Fast and Furious was a failed attempt, but Obama was simply there when it failed. It wasn’t his idea. Should Eric Holder have been held accountable? Probably so. But I digress.

       This is my response. It’s admittedly long, but there is much to say to attempt to fill the void of ignorance with responsible commentary vice partisan rhetoric, so here goes:

       “Obama as President did nothing “to” racial harmony in America other than to personify grace under pressure. The reaction of white supremacists, however did. Obama did, or said, nothing that was (or should have been perceived as) any racially divisive. If, however, one sees pointing out three times the incarceration rate for precisely the same type of minor drug charges for Blacks Vs Whites as racially biased (Read “the New Jim Crow”), then that's another story. Obama decried racial violence in every single instance. Trump says there are "good people on both sides." (direct quote) when one side drives cars into crowds of peaceful demonstrators. I see a difference you apparently don't see. Likewise, Trump minimizes Puerto Ricans' concerns while sending huge resources to Texas. Again, I see a difference, you apparently don't. I see Obama trying to protect national parks and monuments, I then see Trump undo them. Because it was wrong? Hardly. Far more likely is that it was undone just because Obama did it.

         Of even more consequence to all of us, I see the regulatory attempts to preclude another recession caused by Wall Street's unfettered greed (read The Big Short) being overturned in favor of Trump's Goldman- Sachs buddies. How anyone who has ever borrowed as a middle-income American can think otherwise is simply astounding. Every economic effort of the Trump administration, so far, has been aimed at allowing more freedom for big investment banks to replay the conditions of 2007-2009. After that crash, they were bailed out, even though they were in trouble due to their own unregulated greed, yet Trump has declared that Dodd-Frank (the series of laws to protect consumers and avoid a 2008 re-run) are targets to be undone. This the mystery to me: Almost everything Trump has done is of little or no benefit to working Americans, and if he had his way, many more protections would go. It's almost like a national Stockholm syndrome.

        While you (addressing my correspondent) may well not be a racist, many if not most, Trump supporters clearly are. Steve Bannon, Trump's initial principal advisor is a self-proclaimed white nationalist (and former Goldman-Sachs sales guy) He was fired because of his too frequent public statements on the subject.

        I get that the phrase "Make America great Again" resonates. It just sounds good, like "chocolate." As a historian and economics teacher (second 20 years career) I also know that, for many, the catch phrase evokes memories of the post WWII 1950s-60s when the US still had self-sufficiency in raw materials, especially iron ore and our Detroit auto makers were the vehicle suppliers to most third world nations. Likewise, we manufactured televisions and other consumer electronics in US factories.  It also was before the advent of the ubiquitous use of micro-processors using rare earths, about 65% of which globally are “in situ” in either Brazil or China. The nature of industrial production is such that raw materials are one of the primary indices of profitability. For the US that has changed. It is no one’s “fault” and cannot be undone.

         Trump himself imports the vast bulk of his "brand" products (except for the loathsome, undrinkable wine he puts his name on) from China. The rub is that during the campaign he defended doing it (not unreasonably) while (unreasonably) criticizing the Obama administration for continuing the free trade initiatives of Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43, which enabled him to profit from doing so.

        If we must import iron ore (we now do, over $600 million worth last year (4.55 million metric tons) of iron ore,  the US being now eighth in world "native" production). The USA is, as of 2017,  completely import dependent on 21 industrial mineral commodities. Oddly enough, we are a net exporter of iron and steel........scrap! Sadly, it is cheaper for China to buy our scrap, reprocess it, and sell it back as steel than for us to do it here.  

        If we are forced to pay higher wages to support the expected standard of living which boomed after the World War II, when we were the leading industrial nation on the planet, then our manufactured goods will cost much more to produce, and consumers will have to spend much more to buy them. So, what do we do?

        Well, in Trump's alternate universe, we revert to the 19^th century and start a trade war by placing tariffs on imported goods, chief among them, steel, which can be mined (or imported) as iron ore and smelted cheaply enough in China that it is cheaper for US industries to import it than buy it from US companies.  That triggers retaliatory tariffs from steel producers on our exports to them, (as in Canada, China, etc.) driving up costs for their consumers as well as reducing US exports.) Even if this spurs US Steel production to some extent, it hurts all American consumers.

        Now here's the part many Trump supporters simply don't get (and many others as well, to be fair):

       We have the standard of living we have because of relatively cheap electronics and other goods produced in the same countries we are talking about enacting tariffs on. Many middle/working class Americans have the things they have because of their relative affordability at places like Walmart, Sam’s, Target, BJs, Amazon, etc. Most of those products other than food (and even some of that) are not domestically produced. If prices for those things go up, as a trade war will cause them to,  the ones who yell loudest for Trump will be the ones bearing the brunt of the result of his foolish trade policies. The Mercedes may cost more, perhaps a minor annoyance to Trump's top 1% associates who drive them, but so will the American-made bass boat and trailer, shovels, hoes, etc.

        Adam Smith published "The Wealth of Nations," the first true book on economics in the Western World, in 1776. He was right then, and it is still true. As many more nations industrialize, the US must change the focus of its economy. In many sectors, that's happening - tech, drug manufacturing, information services, etc. All these new feasible avenues for US competitiveness have one thing in common - they require totally different skill sets for even production level workers, and these are skill sets which many grass-roots Trump supporters are lacking, and sadly, as we see the dumbing down of curricula, have little regard for.

        So, Trump supporters applaud when he condemns immigrants in general, while US Tech industries are begging for Visas for educated Asians who can do the jobs many Americans are unequipped to do. The days when being a physical laborer will support a family are gone, sadly, for those not ready for higher level work.

        At the year's first PTA Open House, I used to tell the parents of my admittedly higher-level students, I taught AP US History,  "My job is to help make your child employable." That means a very different educational focus than it did in 1940. Hell, even then, where did the tech gurus come from who kick started the nuclear age? Einstein, Pauli, Fermi, Oppenheimer, all either immigrants or their children.

        Of course, Jeff Sessions says "Dreamers" (DACA participants, the majority Hispanic, brought here as youngsters) "take thousands of American jobs.” Like Trump, he has made a categorically false statement, as every actual; statistical analysis proves, calculated to whip up support for "the Wall”. In fact, "Dreamers" have higher percentages in college and earn more on average than other similar age Americans, apparently because they work harder. Continuing the DACA program would have the effect of reducing the number of tech-oriented work visas needed to fill the jobs native borns can't. 

       "Dreamers" who are black, Asian, or Hispanic of any race have as a group, higher wages and much lower incarceration rates than natives of the same ethnicity, race, education, and age. (Note this is an "apples to apples" comparison).  This isn't my analysis, by the way but that of the CATO institute, founded by whom? The Koch brothers, those well-known "Liberals " (NOT!) But Trump wants to discard the program Why? Because It's an Obama initiative.