On Sunday, I drove from one enclave of privilege, Hanover, New Hampshire, to another, Williamstown, Massachusetts, to drop my son off at golf camp. I saw a lot of Donald Trump signs in between. My drive through western Massachusetts, an area whose mill towns probably saw their heyday 50 or 70 years ago, helps to explain the anger that has fueled Trump's rise (and the Brexit vote in the EU).

Big swaths of white working-class voters have been left behind economically; meanwhile, they have spent decades watching elites head off to golf camp, literally and figuratively.

Let's leave aside the obvious irony, which is that Trump is a guy who develops high-end resorts and golf courses and claims to be a very good golfer. (There have also been reports that he cheats; here is a link to the Washington Post investigation.) And I will desist from offering a policy lesson, other than to say that nothing Trump is offering – particularly a big wall with Mexico – is going to help struggling communities in western Massachusetts or rural New Hampshire (where I see even more Trump signs).

Instead, I want to offer an "I told you so" acknowledgment to two academics who predicted this working class backlash nearly a decade ago. In 2007, Kenneth Scheve and Matthew Slaughter (a colleague of mine at Dartmouth) published an article in Foreign Affairs titled "A New Deal for Globalization." Scheve is a political scientist at Stanford; Slaughter is an economist, dean of Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business, and a former member of the Council of Economic Advisers during the George W. Bush administration.

Scheve and Slaughter's "New Deal for Globalization" article should have been a wake up call to those of us with kids in golf camp. They laid out a compelling case for why the political and business elites ought to pay more attention to the inequities being created by globalization (and other related economic forces). The article began, "Over the last several years, a striking new feature of the U.S. economy has emerged: real income growth has been extremely skewed, with relatively few high earners doing well while incomes for most workers have stagnated or, in many cases, fallen."

Yes, if you punched that up a bit, it could be the beginning of a speech by Bernie Sanders or Trump. The rest of the analysis was straightforward and eerily prescient:

Globalization is creating a lot of wealth. It is the golden goose of a modern knowledge-based economy. (My phrase, not theirs.) Income growth has been extremely uneven, creating levels of inequality "greater today than at any time since the 1920s." This may seem obvious now, but many observers at the time, particularly the conservative establishment (e.g. the Wall Street Journal editorial page) tried to argue that rising income inequality was a statistical illusion or that more tax cuts for the affluent would somehow fix it. So far that's pretty obvious stuff. But why did so few people come to the logical conclusion? If these forces are left unchecked, the losers will hack the golden goose to death with machetes (definitely my description). The result would be huge losses in the aggregate. The benefits of trade are immense, especially as a tool for ameliorating poverty in developing countries.

Scheve and Slaughter observed in 2007, again presciently, that "U.S. policy is becoming more protectionist because the American public is becoming more protectionist, and this shift in attitudes is a result of stagnant or falling incomes. Public support for engagement with the world economy is strongly linked to labor-market performance, and for most workers labor-market performance has been poor."

If I were to summarize their argument, it's that angry workers feeling shortchanged by the system will do something that makes us all worse off. Like Brexit. Or supporting Donald Trump.

Political Cartoons on the Economy View All 302 Images

Yes, voters have already started whacking the golden goose with blunt instruments. The saddest part of the Brexit vote has been the interviews afterward with Brits who voted for "exit" but were surprised by the referendum results and dismayed by the immediate economic consequences. Many said they were angry and just wanted a way to register their protest. That is a very expensive way to make a point.

Now let's return to our side of the Atlantic, where Hillary Clinton is backing away from her previous commitment to trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trump has staked his campaign on America disengaging from the world. What do we do now? It's probably too late for 2016, but both political parties will presumably (hopefully?) do some soul-searching after this debacle of an election.

Short memo to the Republican establishment: Your denial of income inequality and insistence that tax cuts will solve our economic challenges has been idiocy. You had better find an approach that creates prosperity more broadly.

Short memo to the Democrats: Your economic plans of the 1950s (e.g. stronger unions) are outmoded. Your focus on people of color is admirable (especially in light of the horrible events last week), but you have neglected, and in some cases alienated, the white working class.

Back in 2007, Scheve and Slaughter called for policies to redistribute the gains from globalization – more aggressive government interventions than the usual calls for job training and better education (both of which are good ideas but take too long to have a significant impact). They advocated for policies that connect the gains from a more open and competitive global economy to "a substantial redistribution of income."

Let me remind you, this was not Sanders writing in Foreign Affairs. Matthew Slaughter was an adviser to George W. Bush. Scheve and Slaughter were making a self-interested, though hardly selfish, argument for more redistribution.

Their reference to the New Deal was deliberate. Franklin Roosevelt saved capitalism in America by expanding the safety net and making growth more inclusive. FDR was accused at the time of being a traitor to his class; the irony is that he saved it. Roosevelt recognized the need to share some eggs from the golden goose so it would not get hacked to death. Or as Scheve and Slaughter put it more elegantly, "A New Deal for globalization can ensure that globalization survives."