While Trumps unconventional rhetoric continues to appeal to some voters, people in the “Rust Belt” of America aren’t on the same page. This may come as a shock to you as it did me, the people in the states with run down closed factories aren’t siding with the candidate who wants to get these factories back rolling. These people aren’t voting for the candidate who promises to create more jobs and put higher tariffs on foreign goods. Why are the people who should be supporting these ideals, seeing as it would bring back jobs within their states, not on board with Trump?
A poll done in Mid October showed the “Rust Belt” choosing Clinton over Trump. The poll looked at Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio which are all states known for certain industries. We know that if Trump has any chance of winning he needs the state of Ohio and Pennsylvania’s vote. According to the polls he does not have it. Lets look at what these groups of people have to say about Trump’s proposal on trade and why they are against it.
When looking at what the polls have to say we see two obvious reasons as to why they favor Clinton over Trump. Trading with foreign countries often decreases the cost of products. Clearly in our economy saving money is on everyone’s mind. Secondly they said they doubted trump could keep his promises of restoring the manufacturing sector of the U.S.
We see parts of the challenger style at work in Trumps side of the trade argument. While Trump has effectively used all parts of the Challenger Style for this certain issue I want to emphasize two points in particular. He is indeed calling for a change, which is why candidates run for office. Opening factories, punishing China for rotten deals, and increasing rules, regulations, and tariffs are major changes from what has taken place in the last eight years. We know that in the Challenger Strategy you are supposed “Speak to traditional values rather than calling for a value change. These changes he is calling for sound like changes to take us backwards rather than forward. His ideals are those of the past, it seems as if Trump wants to take us backward rather than taking us forward. Trump is clearly appealing to the white conservative males, and definitely the Tea Party when speaking on this certain change and reverting back to this old traditional value.
While Trump thinks his message is reaching the audience he is targeting it is clearly not. The audience for his message would clearly be these residents who live in the towns and states of these shut down factories. He will most likely not have their vote in the election and it is crucial he wins two of the three states mentioned.
In closing the“Rust Belt” voters seem to have this take on Clinton and her trade policies, “Clinton has offered a more tempered approach, saying she would seek to re-evaluate NAFTA if elected and that there were problems with some aspects of the TPP.” Her rhetoric is the opposite of Trump’s and wins plenty of voters over by appearing to be rational and level headed versus Trump’s temper and fiery rhetoric. With only a few days left until the election we will soon see which way these states vote.
As many topics throughout this election have become heated between the two presidential candidates we find trade to be one that is heavily discussed yet less likely to cause a huge feud like abortion and immigration do. As time has progressed and the election draws closer we can look at both candidates rhetoric on trade alone and decide for ourselves which candidate will win the independent or undecided vote.
We all know that dramatization plays a large role in campaigns, especially in the Trump campaign. Trump has promised to bring jobs back from over seas with a “7 point protectionist plan of action.” This is good. Trump has shown us he has a plan. Not only has Trump put out this plan but he has also made some dramatic promises dealing with trade if he were to become President. He claims he would give the secretary of commerce the job of finding every violation of trade agreements which are taking place by other countries, NAFTA is going to be renegotiated/revised, we will withdraw from the Trans Pacific Partnership and he will appoint the toughest and smartest trade negotiators, etc. Dramatic? Indeed. Trump is making these large promises because they appeal to the audience he is aiming at. It is clear he is only speaking to the his supporters, he is reaching no new audiences with these extreme conservative views. As the final debate focused a good deal on trade we saw no dissociation from Trump and these previous claims he made on trade. He continued with his talk of taking action against China for their wrong doings to the U.S. when it comes to trade. He was sure to reiterate that stronger tariffs and taxes would be weak punishment once he got ahold of China. This rhetoric is once again appealing to no one but the people who are already voting for him. In his final debate which was the perfect opportunity to turn his rhetoric around he continues with his same views which he has held from the beginning.
We will see no gain of support from new voters as long as Trump continues to discuss extreme plans of action like these.
Clintons rhetoric on this issue is not the total opposite but instead not as harsh and forward as Trump’s. In the wikileaks we see Clintons speech to a bank and she referred to open borders which many thought she meant open trade as well. Clinton corrected this in the last debate as saying she was referring to energy not trade. Whether or not this is true we see Clinton’s rhetoric on trade beats Trumps any day. She is doing a better job at appealing to voters who are undecided or independent. By not coming out with highly democratic plans Clinton is targeting those in the middle and appealing to them. While she opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership she isn’t making threats to take extreme action on China or renegotiate NAFTA. Clinton said “There is a difference between getting tough on trade and starting trade wars.” Clinton was right and has once again portrayed herself as the level headed, stable candidate. Trump on the other hand continues his right winged rhetoric and is appealing to no audience other than the ones who already have his vote. His reckless rhetoric is very likely to cause a trade war if he were put in office.
It is clear Clinton does a much better job at speaking to undecided voters and the independents. As Dr. Adams said the independents will decide the election. It is a little late for Trump to take back all of his extreme plans of action but if he has any hope of winning he needs to bring his rhetoric down to a level not just the conservatives appeal to
Wednesday night’s debate didn’t give us anything new on trade like we hoped. This being the case it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t listen for their reiteration of plans on policy. Trump made sure to call Clinton out on a piece of information released by wikileaks. The wikileaks recovered a speech from Clinton to a private bank. The speech contained matter on the issue of open trade and open borders. Clinton was quoted as saying in the speech “ My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”
What does this mean to the liberals? Ahh nothing major, she probably wouldn’t actually endorse absolute free trade. That is old news. The liberals have either made their decision on the email scandal; her supporters have pretty much muted the email accusations being whirled at her. So this issue on free trade and open borders has probably not been acknowledged by her supporters.
As for the right wing conservatives this has infuriated them. They are drawing conclusions like Clinton would drop any rules and regulations on trade. This is clearly not what we need. It is not going to put jobs in America or strengthen our economy. Clinton of course replied by saying she didn’t actually mean free trade instead about how we trade energy. Anyone believe that or was it a quick coverup? We do not know the exact context in which she meant it due to such a small portion of the speech being leaked but what if she is truly talking about trade? What else would this do to the United States to drop regulations, tariffs, and regulations? Free trade at its core is allowing trade to take its natural course. We cannot let trade do this.
As we have all made it a point to look at issues we find important when choosing a candidate to vote for in the 2016 election their policies play a large role in deciding which we will vote for. Many of us find trade and foreign policy to be a big issue in this year’s election. When looking at the rest of the United States and what issues they see as important we can see trade is a major issue to up to 57% of Americans. We have learned that it is extremely important when watching debates between the two candidates to pick out which issues matter most to you and watch how the candidates discuss and debate them. If trade is one that is important to you I would love to know how you plan on voting this election seeing as neither candidate can seem to map out a logical plan of how they intend to bring jobs back from China and tighten the grip on trade with China. Trump and Clinton stand on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to trade, the only thing they seem to agree on is their mutual dislike of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
China is one of the countries we focus a lot of attention on when we discuss trade. We know that both Presidential candidates are in favor of putting their foot down to China when it comes to trade. We have heard Trumps rhetoric on trade and how mind blowing it can be at times. If we in the United States are baffled to hear the way Trump discusses trade with China what do the people of China think when they hear these remarks from Trump? Zhang Yuanan A News Reporter from a Chinese news channel was interviewed by NPR. The discussion was mainly about Chinas feelings toward the Presidential election seeing as it not only affects the United States but other countries as well. When asked about Trump’s comment “ We can’t continue to allow China to rape our country,” we found a reaction not much different from America’s reaction. Yuanan said “The rhetoric is very unconventional, that we – we’ve never heard from a U.S. presidential candidate.” We as American citizens can agree with Yuanan on this one. The rhetoric coming from Trump alone is unlike any we have heard before. Although it may be a stretch I feel that when we discuss in class Trump being unstable in the sense of holding the nuclear codes we can honestly see how unstable he is just by the language he uses. The man can’t keep inappropriate comments to himself or out of his language when referring to business between countries that should be rhetorically professional. As it is no surprise Trump cant keep his slams on women and others in general down to a minimum we can see he has no filter when it comes to the rhetoric of our nations trade and serious issues which help keep our country running. We do not want a man running the country who can’t keep his inappropriate comments at home and out of the business of our nation.
We’ve heard it once weve heard it a million times Trump is bringing jobs back from China. Yeah we get it Donald. You are going to make America great again. In order to make America great again we truly do need the jobs back in here in America just as almost anyone can agree, we need to stop importing our goods from China. We all watched just last week as Trump tore down not just one but both of the Clintons in the Debate as he called NAFTA “The single worst trade deal ever approved in this country.” His argument when referring to our loss of jobs to places such as China and other countries Trump called out Ford. He claimed that “thousands of jobs were leaving Michcigan and Ohio.”
Does anyone remember the question asked in class.. It was something along the lines of “Will the rhetorical style or substance of the candidates determine the winner of the debate?” I don’t know about you all but rhetorical style is something we all are susceptible to. Although here substance is extremely important we are human and inclined to follow who makes the situation look better and sound better. As Trump called out Ford they were quick to fire back on their Twitter and inform America that jobs had not been lost and as a matter of fact the U.S. Ford factories were planned to produce two new car designs this year. Unfortunately for Trump substance trumped rhetorical style in this area. Although it sounded like a good argument we quickly learned it had no truth. We agree that jobs need to come back from China and other countries but can we believe what Trump is saying if he doesn’t even know what is already taking place.
More importantly lets not forget the comment Trump made when referring to China. Trump accused China of “Devaluing their currency” in efforts to make more profit off trade. What Trump is accusing China of doing is something that hasn’t happened in 18 months and seems to be a dead issue for now. We need Trump to take his focus to the issues on trade which really have been of no benefit to our country and that are going to help put money back in America’s pocket. Criticizing NAFTA and the way China devalues their currency does nothing to show us how we are going to get our jobs back or how we are going to reduce trade with China and these other countries.