Republicans likely to vote in their presidential primaries next year tend to favor new restrictions on imports. John Harwood reports on the results of a new poll conducted by the Well Street Journal and NBC News: Republicans Grow Skeptical On Free Trade (Wall Street Journal, October 5).
A detailed summary of the poll results is here: NBC/Wall Street Journal GOP Primary Voters Survey.
The poll covered a subset of persons who think of themselves as generally Republican - the subset who would be likely to vote in the Republican presidential primary election. The poll is important because it provides hints at the forces that will be driving the Republican candidates during the upcoming primary season.
The relatively narrow focus of the poll may have been lost in news stories - it certainly wasn't clear from the start of the Journal's own story, where the first paragraphs talked about "Republican voters" (without clarifying that these were people likely to vote in a primary) and "Republicans." The poll may not be totally representative of the opinions of the broader group that may "generally speaking" consider itself Republican.
The respondents tend to be somewhat or very conservative (65%), and majorities that (strongly or partially) favor the pro-life position on abortion, a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage, and action to the Bush tax cuts permanent.
The key question asked:
Now I am going to read you two statements about foreign trade, please tell me which statement comes closer to your point of view.
Statement A:Foreign trade has been good for the U.S. economy, because demand for U.S. products abroad has resulted in economic growth and jobs for Americans here at home and provided more choices for consumers.
Statement B: Foreign trade has been bad for the U.S. economy, because imports from abroad have reduced demand for American-made goods, cost jobs here at home, and produced potentially unsafe products.
Respondents had five response options: (a) foreign trade has been good, (b) foreign trade has been bad, (c) some of both, (d) neither, or (e) not sure.
Fifty-nine percent thought it had been bad. Thirty-two percent thought it had been good. Only 9 percent chose "some of both," "neither," or "not sure" - all more nuanced responses. I assume that most people choosing the good and bad responses were thinking in crude, "net" terms. That is, they don't necessarily assume all trade has been good or bad, but that the balance falls one way or the other.
The poll also asked if the respondent favored "...tougher regulations to limit imports of foreign goods." Thirty-four percent strongly agreed, 27% partially agreed, and 10% only partially disagreed. So that comes to 71% who were willing to take some steps to limit foreign imports. Eighteen percent were neutral, 9% strongly disagreed, and 2% weren't sure.
Finally, the respondents were asked to rank issues by their importance ("When it comes to deciding which candidate you are going to support, which ONE of the following areas is most important to you...."). Of the four categories offered, economic issues, including trade, came last with 17%. National defense, other domestic issues, and moral issues, were all ranked ahead.
So the poll suggests that most respondents feel that trade has been bad for the U.S. (on balance). That they feel strong enough, either good or bad, to skip the set of answers that might be more nuanced. That they would favor more restrictive trade rules. But that this is not the most important issue for them, not even the second, or even the third.
The results are another signal of disturbing weakness in U.S. support for liberal trading institutions. On the other hand it's little difficult to see their full significance. Republican primary voters are going to be as representative of people who tend to vote Republican, or U.S. voters in general, as voters who tend to vote in Democratic primaries. They will play a role in driving their candidates towards more restrictive trade rules in the primaries, in the same way that Democratic interest groups have disproportionate influence in Democratic primary politics, and are driving Clinton (for example) in the same direction.
There is a temptation to imagine a continuum from a trade restrictive Democratic party to a trade embracing Republican party, and then to see these results as dramatic evidence of a shift of the whole range towards restrictiveness. But I suspect social conservatives (who don't necessarily favor libertarian, liberal, or free institutions), and economic nationalists, who I think are probably disproportionately represented in this grouping, may have more in common with the populists in the Democratic party on trade issues, than with more centrist voters.
The GOP does not know how to govern, they are not for the people and they think they were elected just to say NO in congress. I mean how hard can a job be. I wish someone would elect me and pay me just to disagree every day.
Posted by: r4 para la ds | February 09, 2010 at 12:07 AM