> There’s a reason the American left opposed free trade until five minutes ago

I don't know on what scale your clock runs on, but Bill Clinton's "Third Way" campaign was 35 years ago. China's admission into the WTO was under the Clinton administration. If 5 minutes is a generation, America isn't 2 hours old yet on your clock.

>but Bill Clinton's "Third Way" campaign was 35 years ago. China's admission into the WTO was under the Clinton administration.

I thought the support was bipartisan? For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States%E2%80%93China_Re...

It was bipartisan because the Democratic party swung rightwards (towards the center) on economic policy under Clinton with the said "Third way[1]", which combined being socially progressive with economic liberalism, i.e. cozying up to employers rather than workers, which was the Democratic party's former schtick until they lost a couple of presidential elections in a row through the 1980s.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way

It wasn’t quite bipartisan. Only a minority of democrats in the house (108 of 258) voted for nafta for example. Large swaths of the Democratic Party opposed free trade until Obama.

The rich are always behind every change that people don't like or understand.

The argument used to be that low tariffs enabled shifting work to where labor and environmental laws were weaker, reducing demand for American labor. Effectively subsidizing pollution and human suffering.

But then someone came along and agreed. Can't believe something that he agrees with.

This is a bit reductive.

The opposition to tariffs doesn't stem from a kneejerk reaction to a certain someone wanting them. It comes from economic consensus.

Implementing targeted tariffs in a way that spurs domestic labor and secures vital industries is common practice.

What's not common practice or beneficial are the broad tariffs we're levying, which come from a place of ignorance. The implementers literally didn't think retaliation would happen, but it is/will. All these are accomplishing is increasing the cost of goods.

> The opposition to tariffs doesn't stem from a kneejerk reaction to a certain someone wanting them. It comes from economic consensus.

Democrats think lots of things that are "economic consensus" do not accurately describe how the world works in practice, or fails to capture important values. "Economic consensus" also is that VAT is the most efficient form of taxation and that capital gains taxes are harmful.

To be clear about the above, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that position. It’s fine to have policy planks that posit that experts are wrong about something.

That certain someone embraced Bernie's views on the three major points he has most been correct about: immigration, free trade, and the self-serving administrative state. And now a large swath of the other side sounds like Reagan republicans on those points.

There is another side to the coin here:

People love cheap shit. They absolutely love it.

Walmart and globalism didn't put Benny's General Store underwater, consumers choosing cheap shit did.