The Wall Street Journal is a little unnerved to realize that suddenly being for free trade will get you sacked from a Democratic presidential campaign. I especially like this part of their complaint:
The grownups in both campaigns realize that free trade is good for the country, yet they must take a vow of public silence.
As recently as the 1990s, Bill Clinton’s support for free trade was seen as a sign of his economic centrism and that he understood global competitive realities. In the 2008 campaign, free trade has become the primary Democratic taboo.
There’s that word again: “grown-ups”.
Isn’t it the grown-ups that said it would be super fantastic to invade Iraq? Didn’t the grown-ups tell us the economy was doing really well? America has a problem with its grown-ups…they turned out to be ideological greedheads. Don’t be surprised to see America elect some non-elites in November. You know…comedians and social activists and National Guardsmen and college professors and public school teachers and restaurant owners. They’re on the ballot, and chances are a bunch of them are going to be in our next Congress.
Tell me about it.
Right now Doug Feith is babbling away on NPR. I don’t know why they have this assclown on the show: he was wrong about everything. EVERYTHING.
If these are grown-ups, give me a colicky baby any day.
It was mildly amusing during the interview with Steve Inskeep to hear Feith’s argument that if only the Intel community had allowed us to install Chalabi in the first place (strong leader that he was), we wouldn’t have had to occupy Iraq. Got that?
We had to occupy Iraq militarily because the mean CIA wouldn’t the President to install Chalabi as a puppet king.
That was his argument.
Inskeep, to his credit, was laughing at the guy. But Feith? Grown up, all the way. Bush is a grown up too, if we wait another six months and stay the course and just listen to Bush’s cabinet of grown-up experts, the surge will have produced ponies and so will have the economy!
If only Steve Inskeep would now call on Cokie to explain what reality really is.
The problem with Columbia isn’t “free trade.” It’s the fact that the government puts union leaders to death!
The treatment of unions in Columbia is beyond the pale. But it is also true that the dogmatic ideology of free trade is unacceptable: the US is free-trading itself to death. How does the WSJ think the masses are going to survive without work to feed themselves and their families? You might think the WSJ would at least consider keeping the middle and lower classes healthy and financially comfortable enough so they can go out and buy all the stuff sold by companies traded on ‘their street’. The big, dark secret is that they don’t care because the masses in the US have been decoupled from the wealthy one percent who can now draw their speculative profits from all over the world. The US is no longer their country, except when they’re looking for handouts from the government to save their banks and financial institutions. But then we must pay for them, because if we don’t, they’ll destroy us by pulling the financial rug out from under our feet and pocketing whatever crumbs they might be able to sweep up in the process.
I’m not against trade agreements, just totally open ones that make no provisions for consistent environmental and labor rules. That doesn’t mean that we have to tell others how to run their economies; just some basic groundrules.
In fact, China is a far greater threat to us than Latin America (and given we owe them half a trillion for Iraq, will be so into the future for our grandchildren.) The lesson of the EU should be followed here.
But we must realize that Columbia is a worst-case scenario of American “economic hitmen” propping up an illegitimate government, and using the so-called “war on drugs” to do so. Free trade with Ecuador, or Guatamala, or Mexico is far different than “free” trade with an abusive, dictatorial regime.
It’s “Colombia,” folks.
It reminds me of the days in the eighties when I signed a petition for El Salvador to stop disappearing and murdering union leaders, this was back in 80s. Being a secretary-treasurer of a San Francisco union branch my endorsement looked more impressive than it was. After that we had a break-in at the union office and a couple of incidents of dumpster diving. A few years after that our branch turns up on a list of organizations that were spied on by the ADL, which the ACLU said was the privatization of a government spying operation.
So union buster Mark Penn was lobbying for “free trade” with Colombia. And Clinton had this guy running her campaign? Isn’t this a character question about Clinton, much more than whether she made up stories about sniper fire? Doesn’t that say something to union people in Pennsylvania? Probably not, because the media will assiduously avoid this.
Yesterday I got a note from my union that our state pres is running to be a Hillary delegate at the convention. In Colombia the snipers are shooting at the unionists. Geez.
I just don’t get why so many are out there for her. At a recent labor dinner, I got to sit and talk to a wife of a local’s president and I was telling her that the contest was over and she needed to finally walk away. I got the most incredulous look and, “I don’t think that’s true. She can win.” I asked how, that the math meant it was impossible, she just shrugged.
But what I don’t get is why be for her in the first place, NAFTA, Penn, her silence on American Axle (how many days wo you have to be on strike before she even notices?), how can you possibly be for her?
I don’t know what Obama will do, but I’m way more willing to take my chances on someone with a good track record with local workers issues (Chicago Hotel Strike) then to turn and pick the one who hires the anti-union goons to run her campaign.
About the only thing I can think of is “love is blind.” These people fell in love with Clinton, with the idea of a woman being President, and it’s hard to shed that feeling when you’ve invested so much emotional capital into such a relationship. It’s like George Lakoff says. People construct this world-view, and facts that don’t fit into the world-view get ridiculed, ignored or tossed aside.
I agree with you Bob, that Clinton’s association with Penn is despicable and particularly horrifying to a union activist and leader which I was in Central New York (Local 2023 of the AFT). This connection says reams about her character and where she really stands on some of the most important issues of our time. In my judgment she has sold her soul for three million pieces of silver. I think she seeks presidential power to protect and augment her growing riches.
Keep up the good fight. Viva Obama.
And the process is too subtle for most to notice. I look at appointments. When Bush puts someone on a labor board you know he’s bad news. But when Bill Clinton put someone on some labor board, the appointee was either a “moderate,” meaning he’ll let you get fucked half the time, or “weak,” which meant he’d feel bad when you were being fucked. Damned few people who were full on pro labor.
As far as Labor’s relationship with Clinton, the national president of my union showed up at our branch meeting in January and wasted an hour of our time singing the praises of Hillary and how she and he joke around and how she’s one of the guys. He sang the praises of her health plan. But our union has one of the biggest health plans in the federal government, and that undoubtedly rakes in cash. A single-payer would instantly cut off lots of money to our national organization, even though a single-payer would be cheaper and better for its members.
I think that a lot of union leadership is part of the Democratic status quo and I see the bowing to her as a hedge bet, presuming that she would be the winner of the nomination. That is, not for her history on the side of the working class.
Do you work for the Postal Service, too?
I did. I retired under the old civil service system. I ain’t rich but I was able to get out at 55. It’s heaven not to have to go through the hell of the USPS anymore.
So in agreement.
WSJ is always missing the point.
Of course, I think you hit it on the head here
Of course, I don’t think it’s much of a secret at all.
So lets see. If us “Kids” are a little pissed off at the grown ups, it is because we just aren’t wise enough to see the benefits of: 1.00 a day salaries, lack of food and basic services across the “Third World”, 4 million displaced Iraqis resulting of a ethnically cleansed Iraq, 2 million homes foreclosures in the US, an economic structure that continues to reward the corporate robber barons while refusing to offer any assistance to the “losers”, “Doughnut holes that have forced the citizenry of the “Greatest Country” in the world to have to chose between food and medicine, ……..
Yup- thank god for the grownups! Obviously we need more of them!
When the girls all carried on about how “unsophisticated” the boys were.
What happened to tax return gate? This couple made at least 13 million in a company that was formed in Los Angeles, then offshored to the Cayman Islands. That’s not free trade, it’s a tax scandal.
How could a worker whose own job had been outsourced vote for Senator Clinton now?
I think there must be a bag of wooden words that the thugs and their reactionary friends pull out. It’s not a big bag, but it has all the condescending words we’ve come to know and love: ‘surge’, ‘pause’, ‘grown-ups’ come to mind. But if I ever got the strength to stomach the Economist, I could come up with the rest. This is pablum for the elite.
“Grown-ups” is just code that means
“someone who has realized that, ‘it’s a lot easier for me to get mine, if I screw you.'”
In other words it’s a cover-up for the same old rapacious thuggery that’s always been around.
It’s probably safe to say that people with net worths in excess of $1 million probably don’t have much in common with people with net worths less than $1 million. Their concerns are as different from us as ours are from someone with a 450mg/day heroin habit. They may as well be different universes.
The great achievement of the financial elite isn’t that they’ve become rich, it’s that they’ve convinced the bulk of the public that their interests align with ours. The truth is that they could disappear tomorrow and the world would still function, and quite possibly better than before. They, however, would perish without us.
Don’t bother rushing to the dictionary for that one. The word you are looking for is “parasite”.
At first I questioned your analogy, then I realized that I am always wondering where my next car payment is coming from, my next rent payment, my next insurance payment.
That, even though I’ve been living without credit cards for the last five years or so (I know, I know – I’m ahead of my time).
People who are carrying credit card or mortgage debt must be really jonesing.
BTW, nice turn on the old “the greatest achievement of the devil …”
Bill Clinton’s support for free trade was seen as a sign of his economic centrism
Really? Is that why he completely dropped all mention of NAFTA early in his 1996 campaign for re-election? Seems to me that if “centrism” were seen by Americans as being a good thing, he would have been a hootin’ and a hollerin’ about it.
Well, Boo Man you just hit a home run with that article on “Grown-Ups”. The pond has become extremely roiled and I am very proud to have jumped in a few weeks ago. More and more it reminds me of Billmon’s “Whiskey Bar” which was my favorite stopping place in the blogosphere.
So many fine contributions; such a delightful progressive outpouring of righteous indignation, wit, and penetrating insight. What can I add? Except the observation that the mighty haves and their official mouthpiece (the WSJ) use language to conceal and confuse, to disenlighten and deceive, to cover up the reality of the situation which is the economic and political pickings are so good when the masses stay dumb. Greed and corruption go hand-in-hand and really flourish in the darkness of ignorance.
The sunshine of reform is long overdue. Hopefully, Obama will shine his light into these dark regions and we can begin another New Deal.
For Republican leaders money trumps integrity and patriotism every single time.
When I was younger and I disagreed about politics and social issues my mother used to tell me that I’d understand when I grow up. This went on into my twenties.
Last week I was visiting her. She’s 82 now. She started going on about social security running out of money and I told her that it had plenty of money for decades, and that the way to fix it forever was to charge the same tax rate to people making over 100k as they charge to people making under 100k.
She called me a Red. I guess I’m grownup now.
One man’s grown up is another man’s robber baron.
And often only children can speak truth to power.
This is Bill Clinton’s legacy. He worked with the WSJ and the Republicans on “free trade” and otherwise moved the Democratic party to the right on economic issues.
We still see the effects of Clinton’s legacy today. Right now many Senate Democrats are champing at the bit to throw billions of dollars of subsidies to banks and homebuilder companies and using the housing crisis as an excuse. Democrats sided with credit card companies in 2005 against consumers to make bankruptcy more difficult for struggling consumers (which is the exact opposite of what they do when banks and big corporations face bankruptcy–they bail them out). Just today the NY Times has a story about how this is the first economic recovery in American history where the middle class actually ended up worse off.
All to many Democrats act precisely the way the WSJ describes: privately they think the best way to help the economy is to provide direct transfer payments and welfare to corporate America and to ask the working class to bear the largest burden. The Clintonian Democrats really believe the hype of supply side economics.
Democratic economic policy is a jumbled mess. I don’t have the answers but I know Clintonian economic policy is a big part of the problem.
Right. And this is what he, his wife and daughter are still pushing. They’re like a revolving, self-supplying ATM which never runs out. Please, oh please, Penn. wake up. Everyone has awaken to the Penn named Hillary, and now let the people of Penn. wake up to Obama. How did the Clintons ever make all that cold cash in eight years? They’re not as special as all that.
P.S. And they did it while she was in the senate. Give me a break. Their time has passed.
Just a reminder, Democrats who supported the Peru Free Trade Agreement
Does anyone remember back to 2000 when His Nibs was saying that it was time to vote Republican and “put the grown-ups in charge”? Anybody? How’s that working out for you? I know how it’s working out for me.
yeah, that worked almost as well as compassionate conservatism and restoring honor and integrity to the white house.
l keep hoping they’ll all grow up.
I wouldn’t hold my breath. George W. Bush is Peter Pan’s evil twin.