  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Was Ross Perot Right?Posted on Nov 22, 2007By David Sirota Editor’s Note: Truthdig welcomes David Sirota to our lineup of regular columnists. Look for him every week, right here. “Ross Perot was fiercely against NAFTA. Knowing what we know now, was Ross Perot right?” That’s what CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Hillary Clinton at last week’s Democratic presidential debate. It was a straightforward query about a Clinton administration trade policy that polls show the public now hates, and it was appropriately directed to a candidate who has previously praised NAFTA. In response, Clinton stumbled. First she laughed at Perot, then she joked that “all I can remember from that is a bunch of charts,” and then she claimed the whole NAFTA debate “is a vague memory.” The behavior showed how politically tone-deaf some Democratic leaders are. To refresh Clinton’s “vague memory,” let’s recall that Perot’s anti-NAFTA presidential campaign in 1992 won 19 percent of the presidential vote—the highest total for any third-party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt. That included huge tallies in closely divided regions like the Rocky Mountain West, which Democrats say they need to win in the upcoming election. A Democrat laughing at Perot on national television is a big mistake. Simply put, it risks alienating the roughly 20 million people who cast their votes for the Texas businessman. But Clinton’s flippant comments and feigned memory lapse about NAFTA were the bigger mistakes in that they insulted the millions of Americans (Perot voters or otherwise) harmed by the trade pact. These are people who have seen their jobs outsourced and paychecks slashed thanks to a trade policy forcing them into a wage-cutting war with oppressed foreign workers. Why is Clinton desperate to avoid discussing NAFTA? Because she and other congressional Democrats are currently pushing a Peru Free Trade Agreement at the behest of their corporate campaign contributors—an agreement expanding the unpopular NAFTA model. When pressed, Clinton claims she is for a “timeout” from such trade deals—but, as her husband might say, it depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is, since she simultaneously supports the NAFTA expansion. Of course, this deviousness is precisely why it is worth asking about Perot’s predictions: to make sure America has an informed and honest discussion about impending new trade policies before they are enacted. And so without further ado, let’s answer the question Clinton ducked: Was Ross Perot right? In 1993, the Clinton White House and an army of corporate lobbyists were selling NAFTA as a way to aid Mexican and American workers. Perot, on the other hand, was predicting that because the deal included no basic labor standards, it would preserve a huge “wage differential between the United States and Mexico” that would result in “the giant sucking sound” of American jobs heading south of the border. Corporations, he said, would “close the factories in the U.S. [and] move the factories to Mexico [to] take advantage of the cheap labor.” The historical record is clear. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reports, “Real wages for most Mexicans today are lower than when NAFTA took effect.” Post-NAFTA, companies looking to exploit those low wages relocated factories to Mexico. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the net effect of NAFTA was the elimination of 1 million American jobs. Score one for Perot. What about immigration? In 1993, the Clinton administration pitched NAFTA as “the best hope for reducing illegal immigration.” Perot, by contrast, said that after NAFTA depressed Mexican wages, many Mexicans “out of economic necessity” would “consider illegally immigrating into the U.S.” “In short,” he wrote, “NAFTA has the potential to increase illegal immigration, not decrease it.” Again, the historical record tells the story. As NAFTA helped drive millions of Mexicans into poverty, The New York Times reports that “Mexican migration to the United States has risen to 500,000 a year from less than 400,000 in the early 1990s, before NAFTA,” with a huge chunk of that increase coming from illegal immigration. Score another one for Perot. Clinton may continue to laugh at Perot and plead amnesia when asked about trade policy. And sure, she and her fellow Democrats in Washington can expand NAFTA and ignore the public’s desire for reform. But these politicians shouldn’t be surprised if that one other Perot prediction comes true again—the one accurately predicting that Democrats would lose the next national election if they sold America out and passed NAFTA. Foreshadowing that historic Democratic loss in 1994, he warned, “We’ll remember in November.”
Yes, indeed, Ross. America probably will.
Previous item: A Thanksgiving Reality Check Next item: Land of Broken Dreams Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
Comment Pages:
1
»
By Conservative Yankee, December 2, 2007 at 2:06 pm # 117364 by Carson on 12/01 at 10:06 am “Some of it may have been a “conscientious decision”. Then again many of us had little to say. The Unacknowledged Holocaust Back in the 60’s the Federal Government came into the public schools and brainwashed us as little children with the message that the children we were about to have were unwanted because the population was rising so fast. They launched a program called, “Zero Population Growth”. They pushed Family Planning and birth control pills. Now they call the same programs, “Safe Sex” but the results are the same. I think you and I both know that you only have to trick people for their few child bearing years and there is no going back.” It can’t be a Holocaust if no one died. No body cane to my school (during the 60’s) to talk about sex in ANY fashion. You only have to “trick” (your word) the Woman as a man’s ability to produce children remains from 11 or so till death. (politically correct language can only “trick” (my word) for a few short years. The world IS overpopulated, That is not a “trick” this country has doubled its population (not including illegals) in my lifetime. ANYONE who can’t see that this is a prescription for disaster is spending to much time contemplating their naval!
By Conservative Yankee, December 1, 2007 at 5:57 am # CY “The true source of the “immigration problem” is to be found in the obscene wealth disparity created by neoliberal capitalism both at home and abroad.” While what you say may be true, the source of our problem is not as important as finding a SHORT TERM solution. AS you have noted on these pages, “capitalism” is our enconomic system, and many (maybe even the majority) see this system as linked to our freedom and “Americanism” I don’t see a change from capitalism in a period of time soon enough to forstall the crisis over water in the South West. In addition the Mexican Government has found value in exporting their poverty to the USA. My question remains; What is your proposal (or anyone’s proposal for that matter) to avoid a crisis when the resources of the region are pushed to a point where they can no longer support life? If someone had decided that it was a poor idea to build a city 9 feet below sea level in a Hurricane zone, there would have been no Katrina effect. Do we always have to wait till the last minute to stem disaster?
By Conservative Yankee, November 30, 2007 at 6:58 am # EC “If humanity is to survive, let alone flourish in a greener environment, nothing less than fundamental change will be required.” “… the preservation of you and your family is placed at risk if you buy into the divide and conquer strategies of the ruling elite. That preservation will be assured only when the working and middle classes north and south see that their interests are aligned.” Phoenix, LasVegas, and many smaller towns in the South West will be OUT of water in ten years if population continues to grow as it has for the last ten years. Los Angles will become inviable as a city if it can not find a new source of water or LIMIT ITS POPULATION! The majority of population growth is due to immigration NOT native births. The social implications of all these FACTS are large enough to dwarf the relocation out of New Orleans. In the 1960’s and 1970’s people of my age made a conscientious decision NOT to produce another “babyboom. The thought of a stagnant period of population growth or even a negative growth rate frightened those businessmen you vilified above, so they went to the government (that we both know is bought and paid for) and demanded an increase in immigration designed to keep sales and finance at at least 3% increase per year. The result being since my birth, instead of limiting the number of folks in country, we increased it by double! Snyders need LOTS of room to range. I walked across the USA in 1971, and there were vast areas of open space. The four corners area was EMPTY, and the little surveyor’s emblem at the point where Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado meet was on a vast open uninhabited plain. We’re losing OUR country, my solution is to close the door a bit. what exactly is your solution? I’m now listening.... hum?
By Perk23, November 30, 2007 at 12:46 am # NAFTA was just a foreshadowing of a recent agreement between Bush and the heads of Mexico and Canada to form the North American Union, which could eventually lead to the Amero. It seems that this is not a Democrat or Republican issue, but a financially independent versus financially dependent issue. If you are upset about Hillary Clinton and NAFTA from a Republican versus Democrat issue, then you need to look at what president Bush and Cheney are doing. Just do some web searches and look at YouTube for footage on the issue of SSA (http://www.ssa.gov). This is not a partisan issue. This is an economic issue that has ramifications for people in Mexico, US, and Canada. I’m not arguing whether those ramifications are positive or negative, but I do think it’s more important than pinning it on one party or another. I think the knee-jerk hatred between the followers of these parties conveniently allows for a lot of smoke and mirrors.
By Conservative Yankee, November 29, 2007 at 2:46 pm # EC Do you know Howard Zinn? I went to school with his son back when he was doing weekly columns for the BOSTON GLOBE… Not the mealy mouthed NYT owned and peppered boston globe of today, but the real thing back when they were (IMHO) the best independent paper in the Nation. I used to write Zinn (mostly in disagreement) and he would always write back. He was a great conversationalist, thinker, and a powerful writer. You sound (something) like him. Myself. I can’t afford “the high road” just self (and family) preservation. That means we can’t afford a half billion poor South Americans.
By Conservative Yankee, November 29, 2007 at 6:15 am # 116752 by Ernest Canning on 11/28 at 11:35 pm See we’re different I love a verbal brawl with a WORTHY opponent. I don’t like the battles (which I regulate between my preschoolers) which I’ve seen duplicated on this site by people old enough (assumedly) to go on the net by themselves. As to my comment on racism, as I said, I meant it as an “observation” not a endorsement, BUT I guess when you get right down to it, as much as we would like to deny it, every Caucasian person on this planet is guilty of some form of racism, for we as a race have been elevated economically by the colonialism of our ancestors. BUT, and I know you won’t like this, I include the Spanish, who at one point controlled a higher percentage of the known world than even the British. ALSO I can’t change the past but while I draw a single breath I will resist “by any means necessary” sharing the fate of the folks south of our current border, or the native folk here.
By Conservative Yankee, November 28, 2007 at 5:57 am # EC “While I know it is difficult for someone to comprehend after a lifetime of being told how wonderful we are relative to everyone else, these brown skinned people whom you refer to as “ignorant Mexicans” would actually prefer tilling their own soil to cleaning Gringo toilets during the day and hiding in fear of I.C.E. at night.” Oh jeez. we take ourselves so seriously these days. You used my “...ignorant Mexicans” out of context twice, failing to place the “...” meaning incomplete sentence or thought. I don’t care, but my joke had a punch line, your re-telling of it does not. AND How far south of the border have you traveled? Been to Cuba? Guatemala, Venezuela? watched (before NAFTA was in diapers) “peasants” (your word) paw through the big dumps outside Caracas looking for food, fuel, and occasionally shelter? Have you driven through the wall-lined boulevards where the rich hide behind concrete barricades, and hire security to go shopping? Have you checked into hotels in Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Columbia and had to pass guards heavily armed with U.S. supplied weapons? Brazil is a beautiful country. Long beaches, dense forest (when I was there 25 years ago) and just jammed full of US and European tourists. I don’t know how the government treats homeless children today, but back in the early eighties, foreigners were “encouraged” to stay in their hotels until after 8AM so the police could clean up the bodies of young boys that they had killed to make Rio a “safer” environment for touristias No, Mr Canning, from the time my father first brought me South I have not considered the USA to be the “best” at much of anything. Say “United Fruit!” You additionally claim that I “… defend racism as necessary to economic survival” No, I never defended it, and I challenge you to post a passage that suggests I did. I do however recognize that racism exists as a tool of the elite to divide (and successfully conquer) the working classes. Economic racism (the type traditionally practiced in the USA) has NO relationship to color or ethnic diversity, as it can be observed in the clash between the two separate waves of Italians who entered the US in the late 19th century, and the middle 20th century, and the resident African American hatred for the Haitians...(not spoken, just practiced) From my point of view the most virulent “racism” (the US variety now) is practiced by folks who advocate for illegal alien citizenship, as the people who are most injured by this course are recent legal immigrants, and those who share the bottom rungs (for whatever reasons) on our economic ladder. Whom do you think illegals are replacing, Donald Trump? Different views of the way things are that’s all!
By Conservative Yankee, November 26, 2007 at 6:05 am # 115859 by cyrena on 11/25 at 11:52 pm “It’s always been about racism, but they will never, ever, ever, admit it.” I admit it, it has ALWAYS (since the dawn of recorded history) been about “racism” BUT (follow carefully here) SO WHAT??? Racism has always been about “economic survival” for those at the bottom of the ladder. Here in Maine we once had the largest contingent of KKK’ers North of the Mason Dixon line. at the time we may have had 3 people who were not white, blond, and blue-eyed. The KKK was here for the French Catholics who were moving to Maine from economically depressed Quebec Provence. The KKK marched in Milo, Old Town and even Bangor. My grandfather (who lived in Rangely in the summer) called Maine “Mississippi with snow!” Racism is a tool of corporate bosses and ineffective government. set people against each other, and sure enough they will be confused as to where their problems originate. BUT none of this mitigates the truth that “immigrants” are only accepted (anywhere except Israel) as employees are needed. and in case you haven’t noticed we aren’t awash in jobs. Here in Maine again, the school-aged children used to pick the blueberries. They used the money to buy school clothing, and other stuff. Now the folks here from South of the border pick blueberries for half what the children used to get. they are not paid until the season is over, which allows them to collect “local aid” (what passes for welfare here) during the picking season. Because our Governor is a sanctuary stater, it is illegal to ask applicants for local aid their citizenship status. So the growers are happy, but the property taxpayers in Washington County (where the average income is $16,000 per year) pick up the tab, in effect subsidizing the price out-of-stater’s pay for their store bought berries. Additionally, we (these United States) allows 2 million people a year to immigrate annually, legally. No one has answered this question so far, and I have asked it often, but I’ll put it to you again: How many people of the 4.5 billion who would like a better life, should we accept here? Do your children, grandchildren etc deserve a view of the wide open spaces we were allowed to roam in our youth? At what point do cities like LA, Phoenix, LasVages, and Flagstaff become non-viable due to lack of water? There is an old African tale about boaters finding a child in the river, then another then another. after saving about five, the oarsman in the front begins to pass floating children. The stern man asks “why are you passing these children? The oarsman says so I can get upstream and find the fool who is throwing them in the river. At some point this boat is going down under the weight. What’s your solution?
By Conservative Yankee, November 25, 2007 at 1:33 pm # 115720 by Ernest Canning on 11/25 at 10:10 am “ believe that much of 21st Century immigrant bashing is grounded in racism. When is the last time you heard someone complain about illegal immigrants from Canada? Bechtel is raking in billions to build a wall on our Southern border. Has anyone so much as hinted at the need for a wall on our Northern border?” No Mr. Canning, again this is intellectually dishonest. There are not hordes of Canadians washing across the border taking jobs, destroying the environment, and ignoring another country’s sovereignty. You have identified your self as a person who knows the ins and outs of the legal system. AND I will agree there is no ABSOLUTE law in these United States, BUT by any standard the law has been broken. if we choose to look the other way, ignore our own laws, allow corporate pigs to profit on the mess they and their lackys have created, then so be it, the population of the USA always gets what the majority deserves, but please don’t treat me like an ignorant Mexican. We have no need for a wall across our northern border, WHEN THE NEED FOR SUCH A WALL ARISES, I will be the first out with my bricks. When Canadians stomp over private property, dump tons of litter accept wages below minimum, steal the identities of others, putting their lives askew, then we need a wall up here, As of right now, the Canadians come for one reason… to patronize our stores, and buy cheap stuff. we like that! Incidentally without Canadians there would be NO economy in this part of Maine. AND that doesn’t imply a lack of respect, I’m just not buying what you are selling!
By Conservative Yankee, November 25, 2007 at 5:24 am # 115498 by Ernest Canning on 11/24 at 10:05 am \"resulting in an influx of economic refugees whom the hard-right then demonizes as “illegal immigrants"-" No Mr. Canning. This statement is as “intellectually dishonest” as Hill-the-business-shill’s quip. Like it or not, people who break the (even a reprehensible) law. are “illegal” Despite the changes over the last 44 years, I still have a Loitering/disturbing the peace conviction on my record. My father (who never got so much as a parking ticket elsewhere) had a similar citation. The charges resulted from a mass arrest during a civil-rights protest in Birmingham (known as bombingham in those days) In Alabama, I’m an ex-con having served four days in jail (time served) after being found guilty.
By C Cole, November 24, 2007 at 11:25 pm # Was Ross Perot right? What Hillary should have said was “the only Giant Sucking Sound I remember were the one’s coming out of the oval office” hahahaha
By Archie1954, November 24, 2007 at 7:36 pm # The part of NAFTA no one seems to talk about concerns petroleum. Did you know that NAFTA requires Canada (a net exporter of petroleum products) to share any deficiency in oil supply with the U.S.? In other words if sufficiency of supply falters in the U.S. Canada must accept some curtailment of its own uses to provide the U.S. with petroleum. That is definitely to the benefit of the U.S.
By GW=MCHammered, November 24, 2007 at 6:25 pm # Global Economy ... True Democratic Rule: Norway’s Oil Fund Swells to $158 Billion in Third Quarter Nov. 23 (Bloomberg)—Norway’s Petroleum Fund, set up to pay future health and pension expenses in Europe’s second-richest country, grew 4.9 percent in the third quarter as the government added money from selling oil and bond investments rose in value. The assets rose to 988.1 billion kroner ($157.6 billion), or more than half the size of the nation’s economy, at the end of September from 942.4 billion kroner on June 30, according to a statement handed out at a presentation in Oslo today. Norway, the world’s third-largest oil exporter, first put money in the fund in 1996 and its size may exceed the country’s $240 billion economy by 2007. That compares with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the largest U.S. pension fund whose assets total $178 billion, and Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP of the Netherlands, which has about $210 billion. more at: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&si d=ahaGBhWZadG0&refer=europe |
Newsroom Carnage Continues at The Washington Post
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article