Underneath the glut of stories about the now-failed proposal by a Dubai-owned company to buy major American ports was something that every 2008 Democratic presidential candidate would be well-advised to note. No, it wasn’t a new resurgence of “racism,” as many pundits in the corporate media claimed. After all, there was plenty of evidence showing that America’s national security apparatus had… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (61)Page 1 of 1 pagesFree Trade? Do donks really think they’re going to skate to political dominance on Free Trade? Are they *that* far removed from reality? Amazing!
Then again, after pimping Kerry for the Other Prowar Party in 2004, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at anything I read here.
Posted by AlanSmithee on Apr 10, 2006 at 1:16 PM Alan,
No, the donks as you call them, are going to skate to majority status on ‘good governance’. Having viable positions on issues people are concerned about, will just serve as a stake through the black hearts of the ‘phants. As in sycophants, ditto-heads, dead-ender Bushites. Whatever you want to call them.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 10, 2006 at 4:25 PM Anti-Free Trade alone won’t do it - at least not for me.
Our city has lost over 10,000 very good manufacturing jobs since Bill Clinton pushed NAFTA down our throats. As the article rightly shows, this has been a bipartisan screwing of our middle class.
Illegal immigration/guest worker/earned citizenship — are all part of a package endorsed by the most vocal economists and stock market salesmen. Mated with outsourcing and offshoring it favors business interests over national interests, vote pimping over fair immigration treatment and the wealthiest minority over the poorest.
Hispanic workers (legal and illegal) are good workers. That is not in dispute. Fair, is following the rules no matter what is the country of origin. All the protests, demands and flag waving only create an indelible image which may become a target for scapegoating as job quality continues to decline. The arguments for legalizing these millions of people are fragile.
“They pay taxes on what they earn.” With an average annual of $27,000 and larger than average number of kids, how much tax can that be? With large families our over stressed school budgets and social services’ costs far outdistance any taxes collected.
“They do work Americans don’t want to do.” Sounds like a direct quote from Simon Lagree.
Let’s see a thoughtful and honest plan from any party which promotes legal and fair immigration for people of all backgrounds. Let’s hear a globalized approach to safe, healthy jobs. Let’s have an end to the exploitation and the deluded idea that we currently have anything approaching “free trade.”
Let’s hear from someone representing the ordinary non-lobbied American citizen who’s been paying your salaries forever.
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 10, 2006 at 6:41 PM The donks shot any credibility they had on “Free Trade” back when they got together with the rethuglicans to pass NAFTA. Their backing the war gives antiwar voters no reason to vote for them and the much vaunted “We’re Not Republicans” strategy isn’t going to wash. It never has.
Local issues will settle what few elections are actually competitive (darn few) despite all the donkey braying about polls.
Posted by AlanSmithee on Apr 10, 2006 at 7:37 PM AlanSmithee is right about the reality of todays national politics: there are very few competitive races. Assuming all the latinos over 18 who demonstrated today were legal and voted in November (dubious proposition) and all eligible black voters voted (even more dubious), the effect on House races would be minimal. Gerrymandering by Democrats as well as by GOP means overwhelming majority of so-called “minorities” (who increasingly are not minorities) live already in Democratic districts. To defeat Republicans, you have to appeal to white middle and professional class people who believe that they pay too much tax and receive too little from the government. The white middle class does, it is true, have less trust in the GOP. However they have darn little trust in Democrats either. As for the remnants of the white blue collar union workers? Aging, fighting to hold two inadequate jobs, retraining to become something less lucrative than what they were, and understandably cynical. Race is the word none dare speak, yet it hangs over the electorate with an influence far greater than gay rights or abortion rights, issues much beloved by Democratic inside interest groups.
The vagueness of Democrats on immigration enforcement that might raise legal worker wages also does nothing to reassure the white middle class or the dozens of red states that do contain milliions of working people who Democrats like Kerry simply abandoned.
Free trade? Previous posters have made the essential point. Bill Clinton and Bob Rubin, thanks for nothing.
The Senate composition, a tad more more sensitive than the parochial House to cross-cultural and mulit-interest claims, may change. By a little. But there will be no recission of tax cuts, little or no action on narrowing the income gaps between captial rich Americans and wage dependent Americans, and nothing to narrow the growing gap between an increasingly segregated and impovershed African American population, particularly the Lost Generation of Black Males, and the rest of the nation. What Democrat has addressed these issues in a Big and positive way? If some problems, (black males) or energy prices, lack quick and easy answers, what Democrat has the guts to say so and inform the public they may have to tighten their belts as a Democratic Admiistration will deal with long term problems to avoid eventual economic and social collapse? (Dream on, no Dem will ask the public to sacrifice anything, we remember poor Jimmy Carter).
As for defense cutbacks should the Dems pull out of Iraq? The DOD is the WPA of the 21st century. Who is in this job-exporting economy will hire the millions of Americans employed by the Pentagon and its contractors if defense is seriously cut back?
Posted by knocko on Apr 11, 2006 at 3:22 AM WTH,
Considering illegals cannot file for returns, they pay all their withholding, number of kids means squat. About four grand or so. Not much to you, maybe. Plus FICA, sales tax, whatever portion of their rent goes to property taxes. It adds up.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 11, 2006 at 3:25 AM Way back, LB refered me to this question, at politicalcompass site—
Who urged suspicious attention to any proposed new law or regulation that comes from businessmen, because they have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public ?
Henry Ford
Bill Gates
Adam Smith
Milton FriedmanNafta, Cafta, WTO, all Globalista plots by corporations to deceive and oppress all of us, globally.
Any politician who goes along with this is either a fool, or a traitor to their electors.
Posted by frog on Apr 11, 2006 at 9:43 AM A recent article in USA today pointed out that while the average American worker’s median wage/salary has only risen 3% in the last year, Corporate Executive Fortune 100 median compensation has risen 25%.
Idiotic perks, unlimited expenses for things like home renovations, and nine-figure salaries?
“Compensated only by stock options since 1997, [Capital One Financial’s CEO] Fairbank claimed one of the biggest windfalls among CEOs, exercising 3.6 million options for gains of nearly $250 million. His personal haul exceeded the annual profits of more than 550 Fortune 1000 companies, including Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Reebok and Pier 1.”
No one person needs or deserves to be paid more than thousands of his employees combined, and no such person can be trusted when it comes to lobbying for “fair” economic policies. The executives of corporations that have a large stake in the fate of immigrant workers are certainly taking an interest in how the eventual legislation shapes up, and I guaruntee their opinion will have even more signifigance than that of thousands upon thousands of immigrant workers protesting in the streets.
Lasseiz-faire Capitalism is the great institution, and greater blight, of the modern world. Hell, it’s practically become a religion, with the United States seeking to convert all the foreign heathens. Look at the way the World Bank and the US tried to push Latin America around…
Posted by Harrower on Apr 11, 2006 at 3:58 PM Harrower, what makes you think there is laissez faire capitalism in the USA? The Tax Code, energy subsidies, subsidies to universities that train corporate staff, etc. The military is also an “industry” that employs millions, including the contractors. Prosperous communities around DC and Boston would fold if it weren’t for Big Government.
Also, I believe if you checkout the Economic Policy Institue Website, you’ll find real income for households has fallen for several years.
The media focuses in on Gross income, national product, jobs. The quality of jobs or cross-section analysis is absent. Finally, the “income” figures are meaningless unless you subtract national debt from household income. We are in hock.
Posted by knocko on Apr 11, 2006 at 5:01 PM Knocko
I realize that American Capitalism is not laissez faire in the strictest sense of the word, but it is most certainly has heavy slants towards it, rather than away.
I was unaware that real income had fallen, and was led to believe it has simply stagnated. Do you have links to what you believe are more representative figures?
Regardless, this does not change the fact that the leaders of the most prominent political campaign contributors are completely disconnected from reality, tucked safely away in cars that cost more than many houses, and houses that cost more than many peoples’ lifetime earnings.
Posted by Harrower on Apr 11, 2006 at 6:33 PM Harrower and knocko,
It is even worse than you think…
“A recent article in USA today pointed out that while the average American worker’s median wage/salary has only risen 3% in the last year,”
Posted by Harrower on Apr 11, 2006 at 10:58 AM“...if you checkout the Economic Policy Institute Website, you’ll find real income for households has fallen for several years.”
Posted by knocko on Apr 11, 2006 at 12:01 PMOne of the ways the government numbers are used to deceive is by short term comparisons reporting. We need to think is broader historic terms.
According to a report I got from the Bureau of the Census website:
“CHANGES IN MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME 1969 TO 1996” — Issued July 1998“From 1969 to 1996, median income rose a very modest 6.3 percent in constant dollars (from $33,072 to $35,172).” At the same time, per capita income rose by a robust 51 percent in constant dollars (from $11,975 to $18,136).”
“... a major change occurred in income inequality. The distribution of income changed dramatically over the period, but it changed in such a way as to have a small effect on the median.”
——————————— ;———————————&# #8212;——————————R 212;———————
Check out what David Walker has to say.Who is David Walker? He’s an accountant. His title is Comptroller General of the United States.
http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/world/article.jsp?content=20050307_101541_1 101541
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 12, 2006 at 1:27 PM I seem to recall that it was George H. W. Bush who “signed” the Nafta Agreement!
Posted by philboo on Apr 12, 2006 at 1:52 PM Sirota is right in saying this could be the big issue for Democrats. And it really could work, but only because Free Trade really isn’t.
Free Trade explicits an unrestrained exchange of goods and services between sovereign countries.
The international trade within even Western countries isn’t totally “free”. Banana wars between the EU and the US, agricultural subsidies on both sides that end up only hurting developing countries, etc etc etc.
Trade between the West and other countries is like a one-way diode. China especially.
I am all for free trade, but we ain’t got it.
And that is the message the Democrats need to sell to America if it wants to win on this issue.
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 12, 2006 at 2:13 PM Jay Cline suggests that Sirota’s Free Trade message be a sales pitch for Dems. Unless free trade is “in their face” guys, it won’t happen. at candidate meetings, fundraisers, blogs, caucuses and state conventions this issue needs to be raised with the urgency that the immigrant lobby recently showed about its concerns. If we can’t tie free trade into Ms and Mr America’s concern about payment of this month’s bills, then let’s move on to something more productive. We need then a simple, graphic, easy to show (pictures, graphs, ads) message: free trade means you don’t get promoted; you can’t work in the job of your choice; you can’t afford that house; your kids will need then years to finish college. If the Dems cant do that, forget it.
Oh yes. One other problem. The likely candidate, Ms. Clinton, favors free trade. Her financial supporters in Hollywood and Wall St. favor free trade (intellectual property and financial services do well with current free trade regimes).
But as a rally point for Progressives, as opposed to Democrats, great idea.
Posted by knocko on Apr 12, 2006 at 3:58 PM I would also point out that appealing to this issue is the most effective method of undercutting the popular support that has been given to the Republican Party election after election.
Walter Russell Mead’s “Jacksonians” have given the critical electoral support the Republican Party has needed since 1994, nay, since 1980, first, for fighting to get big government off their backs, and then supporting the war on terror after 9/11
Mead’s Jacksonians are big on defense and small government. They also vote with their pocketbooks.
Instead of trying to turn the tide on war support, an end run into their pocketbooks would be quite effective.
knocko is quite right about the “in your face” strategy. The world of the Jacksonians is the physical neighborhood, not virtual global villages.
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 12, 2006 at 4:11 PM As far as the likely candidate comment goes, make free trade the issue, and she won’t be.
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 12, 2006 at 4:13 PM > After all, there was plenty of evidence showing that
> America’s national security apparatus had very
> concrete concerns about the deal.When asked to produce a single national security expert to explain why the Dubai ports deal posed a threat, the Democrats just plain couldn’t find one. Because no security threat existed
The opposition to the Dubai ports deal was racist, pure and simple. And it was very, very effective. If racism is the future of the Democratic party (and In These Times) then count me out.
Posted by marcello09 on Apr 12, 2006 at 5:48 PM If you want to see what the reality is behind the “Free Trade” discussion, see the whole PBS Frontline show about Tankman
The Chinese Communists have applied the Neocon model of “Free Trade” that controls benefits for a corrupt elite, while it exploits the working poor to an early grave, hiring young healthy people and tossing them aside when the harsh dangerous conditions, burn them up in a few years. Using a very tightly controled press to hide their fates.
Unless America wakes up this will be the Future America. I wrote a long note explaining this at my blog here.
The Dubai Ports deal highlighted these issues, and deserved attention in that manner. However the Republican base reacted to the bigoted drumbeat they have been fed for years, and Free Trade discussions got over run.
Since Republicans were savaging each other, I did not consider it bigotry on my part to sit back with the popcorn, and watch the stupidity.
Posted by FreeDem on Apr 12, 2006 at 9:02 PM Saw the PBS special. It was striking.
Pity you have to confuse the debate comparing American neo-con philosophy with Chinese totalitarianism.
But I guess muddying the waters is about the best Dems can do given their history of the past ten years.
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 12, 2006 at 9:09 PM philboo,
“I seem to recall that it was George H. W. Bush who “signed” the Nafta Agreement!”
Nay, not so.
Clinton pushed it through against public opposition. It was strongly opposed by Perot in his campaign. Bush lost, Slick Willie won and got it voted in.
H.W. Bush was not a true Republican and Bill Clinton was not a true Democrat. With, “Watch my lips.” and, “...depending on what is, IS” seems to indicate truth is not a recent option.
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 13, 2006 at 1:53 PM WTH,
I think philboo is right. George I signed the international agreement. It wasn’t ratified by the Senate until the Clinton Administration. So you’re right, too.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 13, 2006 at 2:25 PM Marcello09
The Coast Guard, Senior Customs Officials, and Homeland Security Officials don’t count as experts, I suppose?
Understand that the concern was not that a Dubai Ports World would necessarily work to smuggle in insurgents on purpose, but that militant groups could easily exploit such a gateway and smuggle themselves in without Dubai being able to effectively prevent them.
Posted by Harrower on Apr 13, 2006 at 3:13 PM Much in the same way as the Japanese-American community in Hawaii could have served as unwitting cover for Imperial Japanese agents in 1942?
Why would a Dubia-controlled port be any more vulnerable than a British-controlled port?
Because the terrorist and Dubia personel all “look alike”?
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 13, 2006 at 3:25 PM WTH,
I’m never sure how to answer someone like you….but the Nafta Negotiations were long and drawn out…Bush I, from the US, Canada’s PM and Mexico’s President signed the Treaty, I remember seeing the Photo-op…It had to be ratified by the Senate…Civics Classes tell you that… It was supported by Big Business….and of course opposed by Perot….It promised many great things…It was ratified by the U S Senate…you might want to blame them…they made it legal…and Only 9 Republicans voted Nay, 33 Yeas…Democratic were 27 yeas…29 nays….
Why did Clinton support it? I’m not sure, but the treaty itself wasn’t written by him..
Now…...What is your definition of a True Republican….and while you are at it…What is a True Democrat???
Posted by philboo on Apr 13, 2006 at 4:11 PM Jay-Jay,
So the Japanese-Americans were denied multi-billion dollar contracts to run our ports? I hadn’t heard that.
I love it when you make silly analogies.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 13, 2006 at 5:09 PM “Much in the same way as the Japanese-American community in Hawaii could have served as unwitting cover for Imperial Japanese agents in 1942? “
I never said anything about the Arab-American community. Dubai Ports World is not an Arab-American entity.
“Because the terrorist and Dubia personel all %u201Clook alike%u201D?”
Not so much that they look alike (there are plenty of American citizens who share their phenotype,) but rather it would be necessary for Dubai to transfer a signifigant number of people from the Arabic world into the United States on varying visa types. Mujahideen/insurgent groups would have a much easier time placing loyalists within a company local to their geographic region, as opposed to a British company. While it is certainly possible that a British extremist cell could place their own agents in said British company, such activites are bound to be more successful in hostile-rich environments such as the Middle East.
Posted by Harrower on Apr 13, 2006 at 6:03 PM lb, you are still a putz. who says a lot about nothing.
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 13, 2006 at 6:16 PM The opposition to the Dubai ports deal was racist, pure and simple. And it was very, very effective.
in counterpoint,
Mujahideen/insurgent groups would have a much easier time placing loyalists within a company local to their geographic region, as opposed to a British company. While it is certainly possible that a British extremist cell could place their own agents in said British company, such activites are bound to be more successful in hostile-rich environments such as the Middle East.
I know lb isn’t going to get this, but I don’t care.
The 9/11 terrorists had no problems getting into this country.
Three of the four 7/11 terrorists were native born Brits; the fourth was born in Jamaica.
I wish I could say I was sorry about having to, yet again, dumb up the debate.
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 13, 2006 at 6:19 PM Getting back to the main thrust of the article, reelection politics that is, here is an interesting quote from The NewRepublicOnline,
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060424&s=scheiber042406
One way or another, Dean’s moment of truth will come in March 2008, when a Democrat effectively locks up the presidential nomination. If the past is any indication, the nominee will insist on boring in on the 20 or so states most likely to clinch 270 electoral votes. But Dean, according to those who know him, will continue to insist on funding his 50-state strategy. “Any Democrat running for president needs to understand that ... Howard is not going to throw that over the side of the ship,” says Steve Grossman, a Dean ally and former DNC chairman. And if they don’t? “It’s going to be a tough conversation.”
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 13, 2006 at 6:21 PM > The Coast Guard, Senior Customs Officials,
> and Homeland Security Officials don’t count
> as experts, I suppose?They’re experts, they have a long list of port security concerns, and if Dubai is on that list, it’s very, very low down.
> Understand that the concern was not that a Dubai
> Ports World would necessarily work to smuggle in
> insurgents on purpose, but that militant groups could
> easily exploit such a gateway and smuggle themselves
> in without Dubai being able to effectively prevent them.There are dozens, possibly hundreds of gateways that militant groups can exploit, with or without Dubai. Every security expert that I’ve heard discuss this subject has made it clear that the Dubai Ports World deal would have made absolutely no measurable difference whatsoever to the security of our ports. It doesn’t matter if our port operations are owned by companies based in Dubai, Britain, China, India, Mongolia, or wherever. It’s simply not a relevant security issue.
It is, however, a relevant political issue, because of the ethnicity involved. The Democrats stooped to sickening racism to score political points. Do we need any further proof of their moral bankruptcy?
Posted by marcello09 on Apr 13, 2006 at 7:45 PM Marcello
“They’re experts, they have a long list of port security concerns, and if Dubai is on that list, it’s very, very low down.”
The Coast Guard was asked to file a report on their analysis of the deal. It expressed, in their words, “serious concerns” about the deal.
“Every security expert that I’ve heard discuss this subject has made it clear that the Dubai Ports World deal would have made absolutely no measurable difference whatsoever to the security of our ports.”
There is a difference of opinion, even amongst experts. I’ve heard both sides of the debate championed by credible people, and I think the deal might have been more acceptable had Democrats tried to make it into a workable arrangement, instead of using it as a way to further demonize the president.
Torture, domestic spying, human rights violations… there are plenty of legitimate issues that would work much better to accomplish that goal.
In any case, I’d prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to who controls our ports. In all honesty, I’d rather it be American-owned, rather than UAE or British.
“It is, however, a relevant political issue, because of the ethnicity involved. The Democrats stooped to sickening racism to score political points. Do we need any further proof of their moral bankruptcy?”
The majority of Democrats did seem to pander to racial-based fears, and I am deeply disgusted that they used the issue to score brownie-points with those who were largely ignorant of… everything.
Jay
“I know lb isn’t going to get this, but I don’t care.”
LB was simply commenting, with a little sarcasm, that your analogy was inapplicable to the current situation. I agree.
“The 9/11 terrorists had no problems getting into this country.
Three of the four 7/11 terrorists were native born Brits; the fourth was born in Jamaica. “
Indeed, yet their marching orders came from the Middle East, which is still the largest concentration of active Muslim extremist groups anywhere on the planet. It is not the only possible threat, but certainly a signifigant one.
In addition, that was before a large number of the current security measures were put into place. That attack changed a great deal.
Posted by Harrower on Apr 13, 2006 at 8:44 PM Harrower,
The point of the comparison is not that J-A were denied multi-miilion dollar business contracts,. The comparison was much more fundamental. The underlying argument for “J-A” relocation was no different than the argument against ports managed by a Dubai company.
First generation American sympathies towards the mother country are strong. Yet that was not a sufficient motive for arbitrary relocation of innocent people.
Neither are the arguments, again ultimately based on race, against the Dubai ports issue, sufficient.
Of course, that is merely my humble opinion.
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 13, 2006 at 8:58 PM > The Coast Guard was asked to file a report on their
> analysis of the deal. It expressed, in their words,
> “serious concerns” about the deal.The Coast Guard has made it clear that those “serious concerns” were pulled out of context. The Coast Guard clarifies their position on their website (https://www.piersystem.com/go/doc/786/111524/):
“What is being quoted is an excerpt of a broader Coast Guard intelligence analysis that was performed early on as part of its due diligence process. The excerpts made public earlier today, when taken out of context, do not reflect the full, classified analysis performed by the Coast Guard. That analysis concludes ‘that DP World’s acquisition of P&O, in and of itself, does not pose a significant threat to U.S. assets in [continental United States] ports.’ Upon subsequent and further review, the Coast Guard and the entire CFIUS panel believed that this transaction, when taking into account strong security assurances by DP World, does not compromise U.S. security.”
Posted by marcello09 on Apr 14, 2006 at 5:11 AM Marcello
I’ll have to check out the article a bit later, when I have more time to read.
Jay
You seem to be implying that no one who expressed reservations over the Dubai Ports deal could have been motivated by genuine concern, instead of racism.
Posted by Harrower on Apr 14, 2006 at 12:33 PM No, I don’t subscribe to monolithic beliefs or dialectric arguments. There are a thousand opinions, a thousand interpretations out there, some are more right than others, but only God has the whole story.
But in reacting to the whole public spectacle of it all, it seems to me that the driving force behind the political opposition was simply politics. The Dems oft accuse Bush of fear mongering and racial profiling. Yet he at least has the fig leaf of 9/11 to grant him the benefit of a doubt.
There wasn’t enough time to adequately assess the possible risks, yet they reached right into that same bag of tricks, simply because they smelt blood.
That is worse than racism.
All the other views just got washed away.
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 14, 2006 at 1:01 PM philboo & LB,
I stand corrected on G.H.W Bush and NAFTA — There was a photo of Bush the First at what was referredto as an “initialing ceremony” which was with this text.
———————————& ———
NAFTA — History of the implementation
The agreement was initially pursued by free-trade conservative governments in the US and Canada, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and US President George H. W. Bush. There was considerable opposition on both sides of the border, but in the United States it was able to secure passage after President Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative initiative in 1993. After intense political debate and the negotiation of several side agreements, the US House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor) and the US Senate passed it by 61-38. Some opposition persists to the present day, primarily directed towards specific clauses within the agreement.
———————————& ———
I started writing my opposition to it in 1993 and voted for Perot, since only he and Buchanan were opposing it during the campaign. That date is stuck in my mind and I guess I made that association.Sorry.
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 14, 2006 at 7:11 PM Saw the PBS special. It was striking.
Pity you have to confuse the debate comparing American neo-con philosophy with Chinese totalitarianism.
But I guess muddying the waters is about the best Dems can do given their history of the past ten years
Jay Perhaps you are unaware of how much the Neocon Philosophy is influenced by “ex” Communists, and just how totalitarian their mindset is.
What the Frontline show brought home to me was how much the “new China” is a mirror of that philosophy. It is obvious to me that they are aware of the details, and struck out in that direction after Tianimein.As they are fully in charge, the Chinese government can fully implement NeoCon ideas, in ways that have only been heavily implemented in American places like the Micronesia “protectorates”. The whole Delay/Abramoff/Republican Micronesia affair is a mirror of the Chinese story, and a perfect proving ground for their plans for the rest of us.
As I blogged elsewhere
I recall when the meme was “us versus the Communists” there were many speeches about why the Communists were different than a usual party, and why even if we supported a lot of thugs in the world “our thugs were better than their thugs”
* Top of their list was that the Communists were Totalitarian. It was not enough to do as you were told, but they expected you think as you were told as well.
* High on the list was that “their” principals were for the current situation only and could rotate 180 degrees if the situation was different.
* Another point was that there was a spin of the day and everyone was supposed to stay “on message”, only one voice allowed no matter who was talking.
* A fourth was an obsession with party loyalty, people who disagreed, or worse, changed their minds were dealt with harsher than even critics.
Those are all now typical Republican leadership descriptions. I guess it is that part about making principals fit the situation. It is not hypocrisy- it is the totalitarian way of thinking.{snip}
FreeDem
FreeDemocrat’s Freedom BlogIt is the Republican “Mighty Wurlitzer” propaganda machine that is muddying the waters. One of the key ones is to attack opponents as using those techniques, to cover their current of future plans to do that very thing.
If you need further analysis of the NeoCon connection see the article on my blog at FreeDemocrat’s Freedom Blog
Posted by FreeDem on Apr 15, 2006 at 5:48 PM This is a fascinating article. I agree that getting the trade agreements right is important. I do think that just looking at the yes/no votes of the candidates can be misleading.
John Kerry’s Senate floor comments on NAFTA show that he was quite concerned with many of the issues that are problems now. (In fact, those comments were the best description of many of the related economic problems that I ever read. There were side agreements on NAFTA to protect workers rights and the environment that never took effect.
Kerry also authored an amendment for CAFTA that was rejected 10-10 in the Finance committee which was praised by the AFL-CIO. John Sweeney’s letter said:
“Senator Kerry (D-Mass.) will introduce an important amendment to the administration’s draft implementing legislation that would address a key failing of agreement by giving workers’ rights the same priority as corporate rights. His amendment would go a long way toward fixing the inadequate workers’ rights provisions in this lopsided trade deal by making protections for core labor standards fully enforceable.
The Kerry amendment would ensure that all the CAFTA countries meet international core workers’ rights standards, a change to the agreement that has been a key demand of workers in both the U.S. and Central America.”
Kerry voted against CAFTA. In 2004, Kerry indicated that the trade agreements needed to be fixed. In the 2005 Portman confirmation hearings (as the trade representative), Kerry spoke at length about how the NAFTA agreement had a negative affect on the rural poor in Mexico as well as the well known impact here. These issues, though were similar to his concerns back in 1993 when he voted for NAFTA.
What seems consistent is that Kerry is for free trade but he wants it to be fair with some real worker and environmental controls.
Here (from the Senate Record) is the beginning of Kerry’s 1993 comments on NAFTA. (The entire statement is an incredibly good statement on the problems with the rapidly changing economy.)
:
“Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, not a day goes by now without significant change in our economy.And not a day goes by when the opponents and the proponents of NAFTA do not seize on the story as evidence for their cause.
To paraphrase a line from Tina Turner, when it comes to the sea change underway in America today, what’s NAFTA got to do with it?
The answer, Mr. President, is, much less than we are led to believe.
Opponents claim the treaty will cause our jobs to go south and cheap goods will come flooding back in, sending more jobs back south.
But the fact is, many jobs are going south now, unimpeded and unregulated by the environmental and labor law controls that NAFTA would impose for the first time between our two countries.
And as for those cheap goods, the tariff barriers in place today are mostly Mexican, not American. Their tariffs are 2 1/2 times larger than ours, on average. It’s our goods that are prevented from going there, not the other way around. But you would never know that from all the anti-NAFTA rhetoric. ”
Posted by karennj on Apr 18, 2006 at 2:29 PM Your historic dislike of Sen Bayh is apparent again. You claim “longtime and loudly outspoken free trader Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), a proud member of the Democratic Leadership Council, which has pushed every major free trade pact in the last decade.”
Yet the Cato Institute didn’t think he was a “Free Trader”, instead putting him in a lower category of “Internationalist”, along with 8 other Democratic Senators and 15 Republican Senators. You claim he pushed every major free trade pact, yet he voted against CAFTA. He rated a 70% in the Barrier votes according to Cato. Additionally he signed the letter supporting the Byrd Amendment which supported continued enforcement of anti-dumping laws in violation of the WTO.
Check the facts next time.
Posted by eamon1916 on Apr 18, 2006 at 5:21 PM eamon1916,
The Cato Insitutute????
Wouldn’t that be a biased source?
Posted by philboo on Apr 18, 2006 at 5:45 PM karennj,
Could you post a reference for your claim of Mex./US tariff ratios being 2.5/1?
The most recent report I could find (1998) gives a 4/1 ratio, and as the following quote shows, relying on that statistic exclusively is a distortion of fact:
Moreover, as overall duties on U.S./Mexican trade have dropped, this has lowered the average tariff each country applies to goods from the other country. Thus, the average Mexican tariff on U.S. products dropped to less than 2 percent (1.68 percent) in 1998, down from 10 percent in 1993. The average U.S. tariff on Mexican goods, which, at 4 percent, was low even before NAFTA, dropped to less than 1 percent (0.46 percent) in 1998.[4] Because the reduction in the average Mexican tariff on U.S. goods was greater than the reduction in the average U.S. tariff on Mexican goods, the United States has especially benefited from NAFTA.
If the current numbers are indeed as you say, that would indicate an even more improved position for US exporters, without any consideration that such low tariffs as these are very small barriers to trade in any case.
I do believe the lowering of Mexican trade barriers, particularly in relation to agricultural products in conjunction with other Neo-Liberal concessions of the Fox Administration, have led to the unprecedented influx of undocumented workers from Mexico. A consequence of some concern to US workers.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 18, 2006 at 6:40 PM LB,
“I do believe the lowering of Mexican trade barriers, particularly in relation to agricultural products in conjunction with other Neo-Liberal concessions of the Fox Administration, have led to the unprecedented influx of undocumented workers from Mexico. A consequence of some concern to US workers.”
I read this one today at opinion Journal…
———————————& ——————————— 8212;———Heading South
Lenny Webber - Gulfport, Miss.I live on the Katrina-ravaged Gulf Coast. We have been flooded with illegal aliens (not immigrants) and on a daily basis, I see contractors paying them out of their back pockets. The contractors don’t report any of this to the IRS, and the money goes to Mexico—tax free, and in the billions.
These people have no desire to assimilate, and ignore our culture as an inconvenience. Our hospital emergency rooms are now health clinics for illegals and I and other taxpayers are footing the bill!
I, for one, have had enough. I and my son will not vote in November. I hope other Republican’s feel the same; I want to send a message to the current crew of Republican lawmakers that losing the House and Senate better be a wake-up call to all of them!
Tell me, somebody, is this the way you want this country to go?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/responses.html?article_id=1 110008253
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 18, 2006 at 8:16 PM FreeDem
I read your piece and remain dumbfounded.
Strauss as a communist?? as the New Prophet for Marxism??
You must be joking.
Twisting that to make some sort of construed equation to Chinese totalitarianism does deserve some sort of award, but not one I would display on my wall.
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 19, 2006 at 2:50 PM WTH you said it before—- jail the contractors.
jay strauss and mao both regarded the ordinary bod as exploitable and disposable, to be manipulated for their own good, eh ?
Posted by frog on Apr 19, 2006 at 10:56 PM Did he?
My last cursory reading of Strauss indicated that he opposed that kind of ad nauseum argument that was, and still is, prevalent in the modern liberal. In fact, he built his arguments based on his belief that the ultra-tolerance of modern liberalism (what we now call Political Correctness) in his native Weimar Republic towards both Communists and the Nazis led to the Republic’s demise, and all that happened subsequently. Strauss, like Churchill, believed that democracy was far from perfect. But whilst Winnie was an optimist about democracy, Strauss was much more guarded.
This was not a new argument. Jefferson and his compatriots were very concerned about the deleterious effects of mod rule (mobocracy) on democratic institutions. Strauss’ indictment on modern liberalism was a reaction against the creeping relativism of that philosophy.
Of course, if I really tried, I supposed I could take the words of Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed and show how they were all fascist, or even communist. Maybe even, gasp, prove they were closet neocons.
But that would require a twisting of words taken so far out of context that would make even FreeDem’s head spin.
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 20, 2006 at 1:43 PM I would also refer you to a (very) careful reading of James Madison in the Federalist Paper #10.
I say careful because if FreeDem were to apply his same convoluted (and, as yet, undiscovered) logic to this essay, Madison would be deemed and condemned as a Tyrant.
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 20, 2006 at 4:21 PM Frog and Jay,
“...strauss and mao both regarded the ordinary bod as exploitable and disposable, to be manipulated for their own good…”
I’ve read so many globalization books over the past few years I can’t remember which this is from or which CEO was quoted. It may have been from, “Who will tell the people” by William Greider or “Global Squeeze,” by Richard C. Longworth. Anyway…
“We think of people as appliances. When we need them we’ll just plug them in.”
I just hope the SOB gets a huge “shock” from his appliances very soon.
IMO we are in greater danger from oligarchy than mobocracy in the U.S. at present. They are much better organized and have more influential lobbyists. Big business keeps consolidating and getting bigger still. It’s no longer the monopolistic AT&T size corp. It’s the trans-internationals operating through NAFTA, CAFTA and WTO.
One bright spot: I heard yesterday that WalMart is expecting a slowdown as their customer base is getting drained at the gas pump. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the company who put so many of my friends out of work, forced them to become their captive client and pays their employees so little, got bitten by the OPEC-flu bug?
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 20, 2006 at 4:44 PM I read your piece and remain dumbfounded.
Strauss as a communist?? as the New Prophet for Marxism??
You must be joking.
Jay,
Look at the reality, not the babble, neither Communist or Neocon has the slightest commitment to his words. They are arranged to deceive, good for the momentary fight and nothing more.Prove them wrong, show how they are operating as if facts were 180 degrees from their previous claim, they don’t care. That was last weeks fight and they are about next weeks fight.
Communists took on liberal babble, but paid it little more than lip service, just as the German Democratic Republic was the one that wasn’t. If you look into the backgrounds of most of the older NeoCons, they were avowed Marxists, before discovering a better con.
Strauss and his followers took the Marxist fantasy reality, but where the old Marxist saw evil and pretended to fight it, the Straussian, saw the evil and embraced it, then denied he had seen anything, and anyway it wasn’t actually evil anyway, and you couldn’t prove it, and besides you’re a pedophile.
By the time you throw off all his accusations at you, he has beaten you and moved on. If you doubt it , ask Gore, Kerry, Cleland, Condit, all the way back to Sen Frank Church.
A big part of their Con is to create some sort of fantasy straw Liberal that they can cause people to self censor themselves from. The greatest weakness of anti-totalitarians is that they can barely organize a luncheon, much less any grand scheme, but they would have you believe that Liberals are organized, and out to subvert freedom.
And if some grand evil scheme is exposed, like Abramoff or Enron then it was at least bipartisan, and probably closet liberals out to make poor honest conservatives look bad. Certainly a plot by the Liberal news media.
But hey all that partisan relativism is just Liberals saying that killing thousands for a lie is worse than consensual sex when any fool knows that unapproved sex is the worst possible crime, unless of course a Republican does it, then it is not really sex, its just hazing.
The idea that making the world a better place for everybody, might just make the world a better place for everybody, is such a horror they can not even allow the thought.
That the Chinese Government abandoned all pretense of helping people (Marxist mode) and created the Capitalist exploitation Straussian mode ( modified some to Chinese sensibilities and government needs **) can hardly be denied, especially with the detail provided by the Frontline article
**the Fundamentalist Manachean meme so loved by America’s NeoCons is pretty alien in China, but the FalonGung heresy seems to give them conniptions ( I don’t understand the issues but I can see the reaction)
Posted by FreeDem on Apr 21, 2006 at 9:12 PM FreeDem
Jay,
Look at the reality, not the babble,I am trying. Let me know when you stop babbling.
Specifically, what “babble” did Strauss say that leads you to the conclusion that Strauss’ philosophy is no more than New Marxism?
Nowhere do you back up your assertions.
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 24, 2006 at 5:55 PM There are a few facts that I don’t think are in much dispute.
1. Strauss was deliberately obscure, that his agenda would only be for an elite there is an
Ann Norton interview thatmakes details about this clearer2. David Horowitz, Irving Kristol, Max Shockman, and many other Straussians are fairly open about their previous Marxist backgrounds, though they claim to be opposite of that now.
3. The frontline show you said you watched documented an about face by the Government that went from a supportive {everyone has a job, health care, schooling etc. (however badly delivered)} to a completely non -supportive Social Darwinism that was chewing people up and spitting them out.
Shadia Drury extensively documents the Marxist inversions, the most famous and telling being to effect “Marxist = Religion is opiate eliminate it… Straussian= Religion is opiate give’um all the opium they will take”
That Religion might have other qualities seems to be lost on both, a similar case with economics, the Marxists wanting to run the Economy from Government offices, while the Straussians want to run the Government from the executive suite. The only difference being the name on the door, and the same elite running both. ( A purely Socialist might have tried to sinter the Business/governmet monolith to much smaller, bits where there was still a responsibility of leadership more similar to the European model, rather than the pure social darwinism, that appears to have happened.)
The one step that I took, seperate from someone else spelling it out, was that the documentary was documenting the result of what the Straussian ideal would arrive at. As Straussians in the Reagan and Bush I administrations (to say nothing of Corporate contacts) had extensive contact with China, that there was a dessemination of Ideas does not seem to be much of a leap.
Posted by FreeDem on Apr 26, 2006 at 7:41 PM FreeDem
1. Strauss was deliberately obscure, that his agenda would only be for an elite there is an Ann Norton interview that makes details about this clearer.
1. Strauss was indeed an elitist. He believed, based on hie experience with the Weimar Republic (as I explained above) that democracy can be corrupted and measures must be taken to prevent the corruption. I have also referred you to nearly identical concepts expressed by James Madison in his Federalist Paper #10 where he warns about, and provides a prescription against, factions. Strauss, rightly or wrongly, felt the same way about philosophy, that a little knowledge is dangerous. Strauss was deliberately, nay openly, obscure, explicitly writing in a format that required critical thinking to understand.
How does that make Strauss a Marxist?
2. David Horowitz, Irving Kristol, Max Shockman, and many other Straussians are fairly open about their previous Marxist backgrounds, though they claim to be opposite of that now.
2. Your conclusions here are only so much babbling. You accept their statements on the face of it that in their youth they were enamored by Marxist philosophy, but after years of experience and seeing the failures inherent in Marxism, when they abandon Marxism in favor of Straussian philosophy, you refuse to accept that.
Why? Because it contradicts your own conspiratorial prejudices? Because you make the facts fit your theories? Is it inconceivable that with experience, some people might be willing to change theory to fit fact?
Does that make the Strauss a Marxist?
Incredible.
3. The frontline show you said you watched documented an about face by the Government that went from a supportive {everyone has a job, health care, schooling etc. (however badly delivered)} to a completely non -supportive Social Darwinism that was chewing people up and spitting them out.
Ignoring your desultory allegation that I lied when I say I saw the show, your conclusions again show more about your own stereotypes than that of anyone else.
Again, while you may have problems with this idea, some people actually have the capacity to abandon theories when they don’t fit the facts. It is called intellectual progress. The social programs of the 20th Century, Social Security, Welfare, etc, were, and still are, in danger of bankruptcy and all they have really accomplished is to encourage a “nanny” Marxist state. Abandoning Social Liberalism in favor of new theories and modals is a sign of intellectual honesty.
How does that make Strauss a Marxist?
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 27, 2006 at 3:21 PM Shadia Drury extensively documents the Marxist inversions, the most famous and telling being to effect “Marxist = Religion is opiate eliminate it… Straussian= Religion is opiate give’um all the opium they will take”
Marx indeed claimed that religion is an opiate of the masses. So did former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura when he claimed that “religion is for weak minds”. Far from being a Marxist, Ventura is a more of a Navy Seal libertarian.
And if you can’t hear the sarcasm in Strauss’ “elitist” and “obscure” language, well, I guess you need a few more exercises in Critical Thinking 101. Or maybe give Strauss a more closer read. He does a very good job of explaining how he writes the way he writes.
Basically, he is saying, in a very elitist tongue, if they can’t understand it, give them what they want to be happy. Perhaps a bit Platonic, even Marxist. But this is a very minor point in both Marxist and Straussian philosophy. Democrats believe in democracy. So do Republicans. And Libertarians. And the Green Party. And most Independents. So how about a little intellectual honesty here and rebrand yourself as a FreeRep?
Same thing, no?
If this is the only point of agreement you can find, how does that make Strauss a Marxist?
The Marxists want to run the Economy from Government offices, while the Straussians want to run the Government from the executive suite.
Huh?!
So, Milton Freedman and Alan Greenspan are Marxists? And every Tribal Chief, King, Queen, Potentate, President and Prime Minister since the dawn of time is a Straussian??
The one step that I took, seperate from someone else spelling it out, was that the documentary was documenting the result of what the Straussian ideal would arrive at. As Straussians in the Reagan and Bush I administrations (to say nothing of Corporate contacts) had extensive contact with China, that there was a dessemination of Ideas does not seem to be much of a leap.
This, of course, is predicate on your conspiratorial notion that everyone in the government is a Straussian.
I will admit to one possibility though. Strauss was indeed right in asserting that a little knowledge in the wrong hands can be corrupted.
You have amply demonstrated that theory.
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 27, 2006 at 3:21 PM FreeDem/Rep
I do find it curious, though, that whilst you tongue-and-groove Strauss to neocons, your own quoted source, Ann Norton, appears to make quite a differentiation between them….
So, I am a bit befuddled as to your comments, unless the intent is to befuddle. But (dare I say it!) that would be a little too Straussian…
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 27, 2006 at 3:46 PM I do use Straussian as a reference to those who claim him as the father of their thinking. Ann Norton properly points out that the goal posts have moved as his diciples have gone places he might have frowned on. She also notes a range of intelligence/awareness in the application of his thinking, not unusual as any such base will quickly have schisms.
Unlike Marx who famously claimed himself not a Marxist, Strauss was dead before NeoCons came to power. But with that caveat, it would seem to me that NeoCons are direct Straussians. I would use the term (perhaps not as precisely) to those who think/act in that manner whether or not they were actually aware of Strauss,
The deceptive, elitist only, attitude would make their actual awareness often hidden except for their behavior, but that behavior marks them as surely as if they gave dissertations on the subject.
I would guess that there would be some befuddlement from trying to wrap a reality as laid out by Fox around a thoughtful understanding of what is really going on, but the befuddlement is not caused at this end.
Posted by FreeDem on Apr 28, 2006 at 6:58 PM Democrats believe in democracy. So do Republicans. And Libertarians. And the Green Party. And most Independents.
But that is indeed the problem. As long as real democracy flourished, I could care less about most specifics in a particular party bent, in most cases reality will be the final athority, and individuals will advocate whatever gives them the most freedom. This is the founding fathers’ expectation.
In their day the only truly totalitarian challenger was religious extreamists, and they had thought that there was a suffecient wall to keep them out of power. The then recent horrors in England and Salem stood as the best argument for their case.
Now however Republicans (particularly the leadership) no longer believe in democracy and have worked to destroy it since Y2K. Is there a big effort to hide what they are doing? Of course, but the two Blogs noted have documented much of it in great detail, and the vast culture of corruptionis extensively documented here and elsewhere. Even today Congress has just voted to begin to limit the Internet as they have done already to the rest of the media.
I supppose you could call out “sour grapes” or “paranoia”, but an actual checking of the facts cannot reach another conclusion.
With approval ratings headed down the tubes, what was a very nearly 50-50 split, should now favor Democrats by a large margin, as indeed did exit polls favor Kerry. I will be amazed (though pleasantly) if the Republicans don’t find a bunch of “shy Republicans” to suddenly have them winning big in Nov.
Posted by FreeDem on Apr 28, 2006 at 8:26 PM FreeDem/Rep
I supppose you could call out “sour grapes” or “paranoia”, but an actual checking of the facts cannot reach another conclusion.
Again, let me know when you have got some. True, you are entitled to any theory you want to conjecture, but that is all you are presenting. I believe you called that babbling…
...
I would guess that there would be some befuddlement from trying to wrap a reality as laid out by Fox around a thoughtful understanding of what is really going on, but the befuddlement is not caused at this end.
I don’t watch Fox. I watch AMC, the Turner Move Channel, Nick at Night and the SciFi channel for entertainment.
For news, The Newshour and Frontline are the only video news I watch. I read many magazines, print and online.
The Economist, The Nation, here, Foreign Affairs, house.gov, senate.gov, The Atlantic Monthly, etc etc etc.
Again, thank you for proving my point, that all you have is a theory loaded with personal stereotypes and prejudices, and make up facts to fit it.
Posted by Jay Cline on May 1, 2006 at 2:12 PM Jay Cline - You should balance some of that lib diet with a little National Review and Weekly Standard….
Posted by Hyjinx22 on May 12, 2006 at 2:32 PM “I seem to recall that it was George H. W. Bush who “signed” the Nafta Agreement!”
Posted by philboo on Apr 12, 2006
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Hey philboo,
Bush didn’t sign NAFTA, Clinton did.How stupid are you?
lol…
Posted by tina1 on May 17, 2006 at 5:23 AM Tina1….
Please read more of the follow up comments…and check out this site.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/EM371.cfm
Clinton signed a treaty….Nafta…that was the work of the previous administrations…He had his reasons for giving it his support…but he didn’t write it…nor negotiate it’s terms….as you can see by this article…the conservatives claim it as their “baby”....
Have a nice day…you are correct in that Clinton signed the Nafta Treaty, negotiated by the Bush Administration..and passed by the Senate…but the agreement Nafta…was the work of Bushs….and you can google up the signing ceremony…or read the comments you must have missed above..Have a nice day Tina1
Now, as to how stupid I am….well, never stupid enougn to vote Republican…and stupid enough to believe that the only things to be conservative about are your money, and the environment….
Posted by philboo on May 17, 2006 at 3:45 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by David Sirota
- Colbert Conservatism
- Intelligentsia Against Intelligence
- Where Are the Real Deficit Hawks?
- We Are What We Trade and How We Trade It
- TARP on Steroids
- A Party With No Punch
Three parables for progressives and the Grand Old (Democratic) Party.
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
