New Political Divide

[LDAHL]

As I try to make sense of the chaos within the major political parties, and not just in the U.S., I thought this piece in the Economist made a lot of sense.

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21702750-farewell-left-versus-right-contest-matters-now-open-against-closed-new

They make the case that the divide may not be so much between Left and Right as between Open and Closed. Both the Trump and Sanders campaigns focused largely on trade protectionism and immigration themes. The malleable principles of Clinton seem to be inclining against some of her past globalist positions. She defended TPP before being against it, for instance. I'm not sure that President Obama isn't our most prominent advocate of free trade and global alliances at the moment.

Many current European issues seem to have an open/closed context as well.

Is it possible that we will be hearing less about big government vs. small and shift our focus along a more isolationist/globalist axis?

[creaker]

I think it has more to do with people in the oligarchy driving to more power and profits, than right or left, or open and closed. I expect if some event happened to affect the flow of power and profits, they could flip between right and left, or open and closed on a dime.

[Gregg]

There are situations to be exploited and money to be made no matter what political wind is blowing. In the US I think it used to simply be easier under one party than another in any given cycle. Now I'm not sure it really matters. The oligarchs are global citizens in a sense. They can afford to buy citizenship in any number of countries if it benefits them. Corporations obviously take up residence in the tax haven du jour. Open and closed are likely very real concepts and could have a significant impact on people of more modest resources, but I don't see much changing at the top of the scale regardless of who gets elected.