From David Brook’s NY Times column of 7/1/16 (here):
Donald Trump has done something politically smart and substantively revolutionary. He is a Republican presidential candidate running against free trade and, effectively, free markets.
By putting trade at the top of the conversation he elevates the issue on which Hillary Clinton is the most squirrelly, where her position reinforces the message that she will say anything to get power.
But mostly it’s politically smart because Donald Trump’s only shot of winning the presidency is to smash and replace the entire structure of the American political debate. For the past 80 years that debate has been about the size of government — Republicans for less government and more market and Democrats for more government and less market.
If that debate structures this election, Trump will get somewhere between 38 and 44 percent of the votes — where he’s been polling all year.
Trump’s only hope is to change the debate from size of government to open/closed. His only hope is to cast his opponents as the right-left establishment that supports open borders, free trade, cosmopolitan culture and global intervention. He would stand as a right-left populist who supports closed borders, trade barriers, local and nationalistic culture and an America First foreign policy…..
The prophets of closedness will argue that the problem is trade. The prophets of openness will argue that we need the dynamism that free trade brings. We just need to be more aggressive in equipping people to thrive in that dynamic landscape. If facts still matter in this debate — and I’m not sure they do — the proponents of openness are massively right.
Components of being “more aggressive in equipping people to thrive in that dynamic landscape” are more dual language immersion programs in our elementary schools and paid high school study abroad programs. Right now PPS, and Oregon generally, are not providing that needed aggressiveness. Preferring "closedness" and playing into Trump’s hand?