> but if I just lost my job in Indiana because the company shuttered our plant and outsourced manufacturing to China, I'm voting for Trump
Americans have gone through decades of ups and downs without turning to hateful nationalism and while supporting free trade, as well as 'humanism' (in terms of democracy, liberty, and opportunity) for all. The nationalists want to appear inevitable, but they are not.
If there's no humanism for others then there's none for you either; if human rights aren't universal, then you don't have any either. Being unemployed and relatively powerless, people might appreciate a little more humanism.
EDIT: And according to this thread, the low-income voters voted for Clinton anyway:
> This is all well and good in global altruistic humanist sense
In the local economic sense, in fact. If trade is harmed, then your chance of getting another job is reduced and the cost of things that you need will go up. Most of what you buy is produced outside the U.S.
> if I just lost my job in Indiana because the company shuttered our plant and outsourced manufacturing to China, I'm voting for Trump
That takes at face value Trump's claim to represent such groups' interests. If you are a minority, you probably aren't voting for Trump; if you are a woman, it's also unlikely you see him as protecting your interests, Also, Trump will take away you and your family's health insurance; his spending policies will remove other government benefits and investments you receive (including higher education for your kids); his economic and trade policies may harm economic output, reducing your chance to get another job; his inflationary policies may eat away your savings; his pro-Wall Street policies may make you a victim of the financial system ... much of his appeal is not to the economic interests of factory workers, but to ethnic nationalism, and other issues.
My point is not to debate about Trump's policies, but to say: Let's not take politicians' claims at face value and just repeat them.
You are not wrong but you're also asking people who feel their immediate future is in jeopardy to look beyond the woes of their small town and consider the larger, interconnected global economy. I'm a Silicon Valley tech worker so my reality is far different than this scenario, but we've got to find a way to frame the conversation in terms that will engage the other half of the country who do feel this way. Who knows, we might even find out that they have some good points.
> you're also asking people who feel their immediate future is in jeopardy to look beyond the woes of their small town and consider the larger, interconnected global economy
First of all, the nationalist assumption that humans are sociopaths and care only about themselves is wrong; they try to promote anger constantly, but that's not the normal state of affairs. Healthy people care about others.
Second, what I'm talking about will benefit their small town and them personally. As I pointed out in detail, reductions in trade harm them directly. Economic problems harm them directly. Working class people in the U.S. wouldn't be in so much jeopardy if they had health care, better education, better unemployment insurance and welfare benefits. All this directly affects them.
> we've got to find a way to frame the conversation in terms that will engage the other half of the country who do feel this way. Who knows, we might even find out that they have some good points.
That assumes "we" don't. The issues are political and ideological, not economic. The GOP has rallied anger, racism, and populism to such a degree that Trump won the Presidency and a known child molester almost won in Alabama. The issue isn't policy; the angry people have no interest in economics, but in ideology and political warfare, to the point of destroying non-ideological national institutions (e.g., the judiciary, the FBI, the IRS, the State Department, etc.). The Democrats are cowards and avoiding political fight, pretending it's policy while their enemies fight scorched earth war. Predictably, they are losing ground rapidly.
The only places economic arguments matter are ones like HN, where some still value reason and knowledge.
Could you possibly direct us to what definition you are using for Nationalism? Judging by your words, it doesn't remotely resemble anything I've ever read.
Americans have gone through decades of ups and downs without turning to hateful nationalism and while supporting free trade, as well as 'humanism' (in terms of democracy, liberty, and opportunity) for all. The nationalists want to appear inevitable, but they are not.
If there's no humanism for others then there's none for you either; if human rights aren't universal, then you don't have any either. Being unemployed and relatively powerless, people might appreciate a little more humanism.
EDIT: And according to this thread, the low-income voters voted for Clinton anyway:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17004385
> This is all well and good in global altruistic humanist sense
In the local economic sense, in fact. If trade is harmed, then your chance of getting another job is reduced and the cost of things that you need will go up. Most of what you buy is produced outside the U.S.
> if I just lost my job in Indiana because the company shuttered our plant and outsourced manufacturing to China, I'm voting for Trump
That takes at face value Trump's claim to represent such groups' interests. If you are a minority, you probably aren't voting for Trump; if you are a woman, it's also unlikely you see him as protecting your interests, Also, Trump will take away you and your family's health insurance; his spending policies will remove other government benefits and investments you receive (including higher education for your kids); his economic and trade policies may harm economic output, reducing your chance to get another job; his inflationary policies may eat away your savings; his pro-Wall Street policies may make you a victim of the financial system ... much of his appeal is not to the economic interests of factory workers, but to ethnic nationalism, and other issues.
My point is not to debate about Trump's policies, but to say: Let's not take politicians' claims at face value and just repeat them.