The Ghost Voters of Trump

I have a new book now on Amazon Ohio Presidents

The book offers a unique view of the populism and republicanism of Ohio and the Midwest, which resulted in the election of Ohio Presidents from 1866 to 1920.

   Ohio claims eight presidents (one Whig and seven Republicans) during a period from

1841 to 1923: William Harrison (1841-1841), U. S. Grant (1869-1877), Rutherford Hayes

(1877-1881), James Garfield (1881-1881), Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893), William McKinley (1897-1901), William Taft (1909-1913), and Warren Harding (1921-1923). What is unique about the Ohio presidents is that their industrial policies, nationalism, and social beliefs formed unified philosophy and a legacy. It was a shared view of a Midwestern educational system. It was not the idea of any one president but the people that elected them. From 1860 to 1930, Ohio republicanism dominated politics across the America. The simple definition of that legacy might be called Ohio republicanism. While it was integral to the Republican Party of the period, it cannot be viewed through the eyes of the Republican Party alone. Ohio republicanism was an alliance of social, Christian, populism, nationalism, industrialism, and conservative economics. It initially was populism in search of a party with pieces from the Whig, Democrat, and Republican Parties. It morphed from the Whig Party of Abe Lincoln to end slavery and swallowed up a group of specific purpose parties under a national banner, such as the Abolition and Free Soil Parties. The ghost of Ohio republicanism is still seen today.]

Quentin R. Skrabec, Jr., an international expert in management, manufacturing and globalization, is the author of numerous books on American industrial history, capitalism and notable business leaders. He lives in Maumee, Ohio.

The Golden Age of American manufacturing was driven by protective tariffs.

The Golden Age of American manufacturing was driven by protective tariffs. Statistics for the 1890 to 1900 decade support the conclusion that prices came down, profits rose, capital investment went up, and wages held or slightly increased (real wages clearly rose). During the peak tariff years of 1896 to 1901 under President McKinley, steel production increased 111%, electrical equipment production increased 271%, and farm equipment increased by 149%. During the same period wages increased 10% and employment by 20%.

 Average annual manufacturing income went from $425 a year and $1.44 a day in 1890 to $432 a year and $1.50 a day in 1900 and to $470 and $1.75 in 1910. Manufacturing employment exploded even against major leaps in manufacturing technology and automation. The average day in manufacturing remained around 10 hours a day. Heavily protected industries such as steel fared far better with wages. The cost of living index fell during the decade from 91 to 84 or about 8 percent. The clothing cost of living dropped even more from 134 to 108 or 19 percent. Food stayed about the same but the cost of protected sugar dropped around 25 percent. The bottom line is that real wage (adjusted for cost of living) index rose from $1.58 a day to $1.77 a day in 1900 or about a 12 percent increase.[1]  The success of this period of managed trade depended on government oversight, business cooperation, and labor support. Steel production went from 1.3 million tons in 1880 to 11.2 million tons in 1900 to 28.3 million tons in 1910. In 1898 the American steel and iron industry surpassed Britain in steel and pig iron production. The U.S. gross national product grew from an estimated $11 billion in 1880 to $18.7 billion in 1890 to $35.3 billion in 1910.  The American glass industry was another struggling industry in 1880. Due to imports by 1910 the glass industry had increased its output five to ten fold.

McKinley argued that protective tariffs had not restricted exports, and again the numbers supported him: “We sell to Europe $449,000,000 worth of products and buy $208,000,000 worth. We sell to North America to the value of $9,645,000 and buy $5,182,000. We sell South America $13,810,000 and buy $9,088,000.”  McKinley was not alone in is his evaluation. Bismarck in 1882 had hailed the protective tariffs of America: “ Because it is my deliberate judgment that the prosperity of America is mainly due to its system of protective laws.” The McKinley tariffs were focused on building America, not restricting trade. They were applied in a manner that did not produce trade wars. Still, McKinley was clear that his tariffs were nationalistic: “The free-trader wants the world to enjoy with our citizens equal benefits of trade in the United States. The Republican protectionist would give the first chances to our people, and would so levy duties upon the products of other nations as to discriminate in favor of our own.”[2] McKinley’s extensive study had truly brought scientific management into tariff rates.

A tariff commission was also established to monitor the impact of the tariffs and assure that excessive profits were invested in plant expansion and American jobs. This regulatory committee helped limit the free traders’ the opposition assuring fairness and companies invested in jobs, not filling their pockets. Furthermore, the McKinley administration demanded trade reciprocity in all trade treaties, which also helped limit trade wars. And it wasn’t just heavy manufacturing that benefited. A 40 percent tariff on pickles had allowed the rise of the great Heinz Company of Pittsburgh as well as the American steel, electrical, rubber, and glass industries, which took world leadership. The tariff on imported ketchup (a major import) created a new ketchup making industry and tomato farming in the United States. The story is similar to that of China today, which is taking our industrial leadership.

---

[1] Albert Rees, Real Wages in Manufacturing 1890-1914, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961)

[2] William McKinley, “ The Value of Protection,” The North American Review, June 1890, Volume 150, Issue 403, pages 747-48

Why Some Unions Oppose the Steel and Aluminum Tariffs

This anti-establishment approach to trade (national versus international governance) was the core of the appeal of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in industrial America. We are told that we cannot have capitalism without free trade and the need for international governance is settled economic theory. Manufacturing workers know the pain of the status quo.  We must also identify those who favor the status quo of high tariffs on American products. These are very predictable based on Adam Smith’s theory that individuals make decisions based on what is good for them. The banking and financial sectors historically favor trade regardless of the direction. Big banks know trade volume is a necessity for their large profits going back to J. P. Morgan. International banking, like the casino, profits on volume regardless of which country wins or losses. The British move to free trade in the 1800s traded manufacturing for banking ( which resulted in the growth of industrial and military dominance of the United States in the world). International companies and organizations, like banks, unions, and the European Union (which favors international governance versus nationalistic governance) are big supporters of this free trade because they advantage regardless of the direction of trade. International unions favor this global approach versus nationalistic. Recently, the United Steelworkers opposed the steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada because they have a significant number of dues-paying members outside the United States. Soybean farmers dependent on the Chinese favor the status quo. Shipping similarly can make money on trade in either direction. The diversity of the opponents allow for facts and statistics to be viewed in various perspectives.  

Stand Strong Against China's Economic Strike On Soybeans

China knows how to fight an economic war! They have strategically hit our soybean exports that strike at Trump's base. How is the time to for a people rally at "Lexington and Concord" to fight this economic bully? What can be done?
 Take action
 1. Try ( and this will be tough) to reduce your personal and business purchases of Chinese goods- use baby steps
2. Push bills to use 15% ethanol to help the farmers
3. Buy American farm products and meat- KNOW THE SOURCE NATION OF YOUR PRODUCTS
4. Find and share creative ways to reduce your dependence on Chinese products

Stay the "Painful" Course on Tariffs- War Now Before its too Late

FEAR has kept the American worker in chains. Our tariff-free borders, foreign currency manipulation, health care free products, government subsidies, and low wages have crushed the American worker while leaving companies survivors. Yes, we all want cheaper goods but can we afford to have them with massive job loss. Large trade deficits are an economic death spiral for America. So why do so many "businesses" oppose tariffs. The answer is really simple. Banks make huge profits on international trade, some companies are addicted to cheap subcomponents, companies are thinking fore- short-term profits,, and the economic establishment sees rade as a social and political factor, not an economic one. Stand now or America will follow to dependency on foreign countries.

10 reasons we will win a trade war with China

Tens Reasons Why the US will Win a Trade War with China

1.       We have to win! China is not only making our consumers dependent but our strategic and military supply chain. Their huge profits from surplus importing are being used to build a military to overtake us. They consider us their enemy. They need our dollars if they are to reach their goals of world military dominance.

2.       China is far more vulnerable to tariffs. Like the US in the 1930s, China’s economy and employment is dependent on selling their surplus. The US as a debtor nation was less exposure to tariffs on our production. This is not the 1930s and the Great Depression when we depended on surplus selling. Should China drive our dollar down, our products will be cheaper on the world market.

3.       We can leverage our market strength. For 60 years (the golden years 1860 to 1930 for manufacturing and American prosperity), America tariffed imports heavy running the government without business and individual taxes (1911 they started) and having the biggest congressional problem be how to spend the huge dollar surpluses.

4.       China is an international trade outlaw nation and we can build economic alliances to end their economic terrorism. As an outlaw, we can isolate them. Cut off their surplus and China’s economy tailspins. A united alliance isolating China eliminates the fear of a 1930s international trade war.

5.       Jobs will be created by the growth and building of factories in a trade war because we are a debt nation on trade. Jobs will grow for the long term.

6.       The US has the resources to be self-sufficient. Yes, it would take some pain in the short run but long term we can be self-sufficient and employment and the economy will grow.

7.       Like our soldiers, freedom drives our nation’s bravery in the face of great challenges. China and others talk of China not buying our debt to frighten us. This option is unrealistic for many reasons, of course, we can opt for the unrealistic option of not paying on the debt they hold.

8.       We have been in a trade war for decades, but the real problem is that China is waging and winning economic warfare on us. Remember China owns our debt, not us or our resources. We control the major cost stream of energy.  

9.       Long run our agricultural machine will survive and prosper in a trade war. The world needs our food and we are capable of growing what is most in demand. In an all-out war, the government can apply price supports and strengthen demand.

10.   Remember China wins by promoting fear. Fear is their only weapon and it is but a short-term one. Expect them to talk of great tariffs against our imports. For twenty years, they have used fear to strip us economically and prevent us from taking action. According to the advice of their famous general Sun-Tzu, they are winning by fear, not by waging a real trade war. If we face that fear as we have done in past wars, we will win the war.

Founders' Manifesto

The definition of a manifesto is a public declaration of a plan that will affect the public.
A manifesto is a statement of ideals and intentions. One of the most famous examples is The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, but there are many others. The Declaration of Independence is considered a manifesto, at least by definition. Today, a manifesto has taken on a much broader definition. It is a group of ideas and beliefs meet to challenge the establishment or status quo. Marx took the concept to its fullest development in that it supported a set of reformatory ideas and beliefs and set a foundation of guiding principles for the future application of them. More importantly, Marx built intent into his work discussing the problems he intended to address. His manifesto built a working ideology, which would require little interpretation. The history and thought behind his manifesto were laid out within. 

            The American founders never set a single document on the utilitarian level of Marx. They did through a series of documents that included the Declaration, Constitution, and other documents set a foundation. However, even this foundation, was left open to some debate as seen in the Federalist Papers and later Supreme Court decisions. The foundation was supported by beliefs and the recognition of rights, but they didn’t think it was necessary to state intent in their basic documents. The founders envisioned a democratic republic, which protected the minority, while affirming the majority. They designed a system of government that protected against human weakness and corruption with built in checks against power and greed. They understood the faults of human beings. They left some things like slavery to the future. Founders like Washington foresaw the problems of political parties, but did not provide written protection from it. They assumed that core of nationalism and God given rights would always be generally accepted at the individual level. The government was designed to resist system, process, and political attacks, but not philosophical or metaphysical attacks. Marx spent his time protecting against such attacks without detailing system and process requirements.

            Even with the built in system protections, entropy has affected the system and the Founders intent. For example, whether we like it or not the Founders viewed the second amendment as a protection against the tyranny of government and morally corrupt individuals, not as the right to hunt. If we were to allow only hunting guns, this would violate the very intent of the founding documents. This can be a bit unsettling to many. The Founders main concern stemmed from the historical control of the people by the control of their firearms. Of course, many argue that guns can be used to kill innocent people and they were well aware of the potential problem. The Founders viewed gun control as a moral and cultural discipline not as a physical constraint. The family and the school system were used to impose both morality and religion as a cultural control. There was still risk from sick individuals, but the tyranny of government had proven more dangerous to the lives of people. Maybe we have to look at this, but then we must consider the possibility of the government turning on the people. Human nature has not changed.

SEE: An Manufacturing Manifesto by Quentin Skrabec (Infinity)

And The Fall of an American Rome: Deindustrialization of the American Dream (Agora Pub)

AVAILABLE ON AMAZON