Gus Froemke 24 Jun 2010
4:44 pm

Great post, but this theme has been hammered to death already. Since the days of Lee Iaccoca and the Chrysler Bailout we have heard the need from serious industry leaders and visionary labor leaders like William “Wimpy” Winpisinger that the USA must engage in economic planning, i.e. industrial policy. Iaccoca himself, still to this day, is a fan of economic planning. Other industry leaders such as John Hofmeister, former CEO of Shell, calls for economic planning for the energy sector in his new book, “Why We Hate the Oil Companies: Straight Talk From an Energy Insider.”

Contemporary thinkers like Kevin Phillips have written extensively about our dilemma of industrial decline. He has even gone further and suggests as with industrial decline we shall have a widespread national decline in tandem—enters the Tea Party.

The root of this problem is not political, it is diplomatic.

US Sen. Byron Dorgan’s 2006 book, “Take This Job and Ship It.,” puts it in clear terms: foreign policy trumps economic policy in the USA, pure and simple. Who controls our foreign policy pull the levers of trade. And who does control our foreign policy? Corporate-funded think tanks, highly educated academics who never worked a day in their lives and high profile diplomats such as wealthy investors and foundation heads.

Sounds like the Democratic Party apparatus except labor?

Fat chance Obama and Secretary Clinton will do a damn thing on trade. At first, I actually thought Obama might stand up for manufacturing, but now, I really don’t think so.

Roger Bybee 25 Jun 2010
10:44 am

Dear Mike:
First, thanks for the kind words about my ‘Cracks in the Tea Party” post.
Second. I’m delighted to see you articulating this theme that the Tea Party is not a unified bloc of automatons buying every element of the combined works of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, (and you can add Thomas Friedman as well.)

The great news from the new poll you highlight confirms that Tea Partiers—like most Americans—vividly see the devastating costs of “free trade” in America’s industrial cities and dusty little farming communities, and are also well aware of the low-wage neo-slavery being practiced Mexico, China and elsewhere by US-based firms. (In a piece called Globalization vs. Democracy, I cite about 10f polls of Americans showing vast majorities opposed to the export of jobs and 90% -plus support for strong labor and environmental protections, at http://www.zcommunications.org/zsearch/contents_list/30806)

Mike, you have very clearly posed the question before President Obama and the Democrats.  One choice: they can either continue to go with the corporatist, pro-globalization flow of the party’s top echelon and big donors that is wreaking social and economic ruin on the party’s loyal base or working-class voters. This will mean demoralizing and de-mobilzing Democratic voters as in the 1994 aftermath of NAFTA’s passage, and allowing the Right to gain power through what Thomas Frank, in What’s the Matter with Kansas? called “election-season”. issues that divert attention from the Republicans’ unswerving pro-corporate agenda.

Or, alternatively, President Obama can honor his own campaign promises of 2008 and respect the overwhelming public opinion of his people, and fight for policies that will shape globalization to raise living standards, protect the environment, and preserve meaningful democracy from being crushed by corporate leviathans.

Again, thanks for an excellent and very valulable piece, Mike! Best, Roger Bybee

Roger Bybee 25 Jun 2010
10:55 am

A NOTE TO GUS FROEMKE:

Dear Gus:
I was very glad to see you put the trade/globalization issue within the context of industrial policy and economic planning, because it is such a crucial ingredient.

I’d just re-formulate the relationship between politics and foreign/trade policy.  Policy on trade and related foreign-policy issues is almost exclusively the province of multinational corporations and the lobbyists, economists, and publicists they hire. Public opinion—which would insist upon labor, human rights and environmental standards—is dismissed and disqualified from consideration.

Seemingly, only at election time do the Democrats recognize what a salient, high-profile issue that trade/globalization is for the workers and communities which it has devastated. Best, Roger Bybee

Gus Froemke 25 Jun 2010
12:55 pm

A NOTE TO ROGER BYBEE

“I’d just re-formulate the relationship between politics and foreign/trade policy.  Policy on trade and related foreign-policy issues is almost exclusively the province of multinational corporations and the lobbyists, economists, and publicists they hire.”

Roger,

First of all, I agree with the aforementioned re-formulation, so to speak. I was referring to US Sen. Byron Dorgan’s 2006 book, “Take This Job and Ship It.,” where he argues that trade is rarely viewed through the prism of economic security, but rather through the thick lens of “foreign-policy.” He says the arguments made by elites: political, class, media, etc., in support of free trade are always in support of grandiose foreign policy objectives. His argument says we have to rethink our foreign policy if there is any hope of course-correction on trade policy.

I was simply reiterating the argument. I agree, if Obama were to have a populist economic message on trade, he would be a very popular president, indeed!

Roger Bybee 25 Jun 2010
3:43 pm

Dear Gus”
I th8ink you’ve explained it very well.. Corporate elites—and the political and media elites who circle in their orbit—po9rtray their narrow and often-destructive goals as identical to those of nation as a whole.

Because US ordinary citizens are so far removed from the realities of US foreign policy—safeguarding the export of US jobs, gaining access to small nations’ markets on devastating terms to local producers, and relying on military force whenever there is [popular resistance—-economic and political elites have enjoyed a relatively high degree of freedom in ramming through foreign policies that meet their economic objectives, cloaked in the name of “expanding exports” or defending “US interests.”

Your comments were very perceptive—please stay in touch. Best, Roger.

Roger Bybee 1 Jul 2010
10:25 am

“Hmm good”—I hope you’re not referring to the taste of the vermin you are hunting.

iloveuk 2 Jul 2010
4:34 am

Instead of closing the factory, tiffany jewellery the plant could have Louis Vuitton produced Hybrid models or led the way in creating environmentally links of london  efficient cars, the report said.

rayallen100 12 Jul 2010
2:20 am

MBT shoes sale online store, prombtshoes.com is the best place to buy MBT shoes with a special discount price guarantee and top rated customer service. All the discount
mbt shoes on sale on prombtshoes.com are factory direct,
mbt shoes reviews would like to help people around the world live more active, healthier and happier lives. mbt shoes discount are more and more popular with people.Order now,enjoy free shipping!

angela thomas 22 Jul 2010
1:18 am

been following your blog for 3 days now and i should say i am starting to like your post. and now how do i subscribe to your blog?MBT Shoes Clearance