Abstract
Why has commercial policy re-emerged as a source of division among the voting public? This is puzzling given that, while no issue was more central to 19th century politics, subsequently, trade policy engendered limited controversy. Drawing on existing literatures in political science and behavioral economics, we argue that job insecurity, wage stagnation and growing inequality have resulted in a deep pessimism about future mobility and a widespread loss of confidence in what we call, the “American dream.” This pessimism has created a receptive audience for bipartisan elite messages linking trade policy to this decline in intergenerational mobility. In particular, groups concerned about their own mobility and that hold strong ideological commitments to meritocracy are the most sensitive to these cues on the costs of globalization To evaluate our argument, we draw upon a large, original panel data set with repeat-observations of the same individual respondents, as well as data from several survey experiments. We find that individuals who are most tied to the myth of an American Dream, that is, who believe in meritocracy, and are anxious about their prospective mobility are the most likely to respond to these anti-trade elite cues. Our study is unique in that it offers an explanation for both the timing and degree of the current polarization on globalization. Put simply, self-perceived hard workers who feel their economic futures are being unjustly punished are quick to latch on to elite explanations blaming globalization.