 |
 |
||
|
|
|
 Toward a New Washington ConsensusPosted on May 15, 2008By David Sirota You’ve probably heard that John McCain once said, “I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues.” This line is regularly referenced by Democratic television pundits as evidence that McCain is unprepared to lead the country during a recession. The criticism is certainly valid, but it ignores something more troubling. It’s not that politicians like McCain “need to be educated” about economics, as he admitted. It’s that they do not comprehend how economics impacts international affairs. Behold McCain at a recent town meeting. “We need our Canadian friends, and we need their continued support in Afghanistan,” he said. “So what do we do? The two Democratic candidates for president say they’re going to unilaterally abrogate NAFTA. How do you think the Canadian people are going to react to that?” Opinion-makers, think-tankers and other assorted conventional wisdom spewers depict McCain’s thesis as unquestioned truth. They claim that though most Americans oppose our trade policies, the world’s masses love them, and if we change those policies we will lose allies. Advertisement Facts, however, are persistent things—facts like the Toronto Star report showing “almost half of all Canadians [believe] NAFTA should be renegotiated,” with 80 percent saying it has done little or nothing for workers. McCain wonders how Canadians will react to NAFTA criticism, but the results are already in: According to polls, they prefer the NAFTA-bashing Barack Obama by a five-to-one margin over the NAFTA-glorifying Arizona senator. “Canadians believe NAFTA needs serious work,” said Jack Layton, leader of Canada’s New Democratic Party. The likely prime minister candidate told me he wants to reform the pact because it helps corporations overturn laws and because its lack of standards forces workers into a wage-cutting, environment-destroying race to the bottom. “NAFTA has become the template for other trade negotiations,” Layton said. President Bush says that’s terrific—that, for instance, rewarding Colombia’s brutal government with a NAFTA-style pact will quell anti-Americanism from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. But Layton said these deals are “the real problem” for America around the world—and he has more pesky facts to support the assertion. The Los Angeles Times reports that polls show animosity toward U.S. globalization policies is growing throughout Latin America. Mexicans now oppose NAFTA by a two-to-one margin—predictable considering their country’s plight. In the 14 years preceding NAFTA, Mexico was among Latin America’s fastest-growing economies. In the 14 years since, it is among the slowest. When I spoke with Costa Rican economist Otton Solis, he told me, “Many Latin Americans see these trade agreements as an imposition.” He pointed to accords helping agribusiness crush local farmers and pharmaceutical companies inflate medicine prices as typical examples of America foisting corporate-written edicts on poorer countries. Solis narrowly lost his 2006 bid for Costa Rica’s presidency, and he plans to run again on anti-Washington Consensus themes. He noted that just as in the United States, the public in South America is not clamoring for lobbyist-written trade deals—“only the elites are.” Far from a diplomatic panacea, Solis said, these policies help anti-American rulers like Chavez, who cite them as proof of imperialism. Now there is the possibility of change. Come November, if Americans elect leaders who are serious about reforming trade policies—a big if—then we may get a government that understands the relationship between economics and foreign policy. We could see a new Washington Consensus: one that actually reflects public consensus at home and abroad. David Sirota is the best-selling author of “Hostile Takeover” (Crown, 2006). He is a senior fellow at the Campaign for America’s Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network, both nonpartisan research organizations. His daily blog can be found at www.credoaction.com/sirota. © 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc. Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation 
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
Battlefield in the War of Ideas
Email
Print
Share
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Propeller
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
Technorati
TwitThis
YahooMyWeb
YahooBuzz
By Orrin Orrin, May 18, 2008 at 3:13 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“Jack Layton, leader of Canadas New Democratic Party. The likely prime minister candidate”
Only in a lefty’s wet dreams. This guy has about as much chance of becoming PM as do I.
The truth up here in the great white north is that the Neo-Cons got us by the short and curlys—its the same Rove style apparatus that drives the Repugs, has its tentacles all over the CPC (Con Party o’ Canada).
The (minority) gov’t here holds all the trump cards—overflowing war chest, corporate driven agenda and money, control of One Big Media, unscrupulous handlers and political operatives. The opposition is headed by a weak leader, has no policy alternatives, and operates in Parliament like a frightened child—cowering and acquiescent.
The Cons winning a majority in the next election will signal the death of Canada maintaining is largely illusory sovereignty.
Report thisBy cyrena, May 18, 2008 at 5:42 am #
Well said JimM.
I’ve said as much myself. How many people would risk what they do to get here, if it wasn’t even worse there?
And why would anyone in their right mind prefer to be someplace like ARIZONA instead of Mexico?
And why have so many ‘retiring’ Americans moved to Mexico in the past 2 or 3 decades? Maybe to get the hell out of Arizona.
Report thisBy Margaret Currey, May 17, 2008 at 2:05 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
This earthquake damage was partly because the buildings were not earthquake resident, the Calif. state has a lot of earthquakes but few lose their lives in buildings falling down, some lose their lives on the super highways and places where there is landfill, but to build where there are mountains is crazy, mountains cause uphevals at some time in the future, even stable lands where there are few mountains still can have an occasional earthquake.
But how China treats its people is “a horse of another color”.
Report thisBy JimM, May 17, 2008 at 1:15 pm #
This is one way all of us can mitigate the damage of corporate greed and help give needy people a decent living wage
Report thisBy Margaret Currey, May 17, 2008 at 10:54 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
When cars were needed everyone had one, but this country cannot go on and cossume things forever and the economy cannot allways go up but those at the top allways want money so they will sell out their country if they can get away with it.
The wall is up and the depression is here and now people have to go back to importing less food from foreign countries because of the cost of gas, building less houses that have three people and three bedrooms and three fireplaces, etc. etc.
IN OTHER WORDS WE HAVE TO TIGHTEN OUR BELTS.
Report thisBy jackpine savage, May 17, 2008 at 9:37 am #
It would be interesting to see a world with truly free trade. It would also be interesting to at least see a world where we call “free trade” what it really is: controlled trade in order to benefit certain corporations/sectors of the economy.
Of course “It completely defies logic and common sense”, if it didn’t, our politicians would have already worked themselves out of jobs…and we couldn’t have that…could we?
Report thisBy jackpine savage, May 17, 2008 at 9:34 am #
Good points. Riling up our anger at the Mexicans is just a feint by the powers that be; i say this because you’re right in saying that those corporate titans just move on when wages go up and people stop being willing to breath black air. And many of these companies are already looking beyond China.
Report thisWe act as if every last Mexican immigrant is living their lifelong dream to sneak around in the United States as an undocumented worker. Many/most of them don’t really have any other choice. But we’ll never hear our politicians discuss the underlying reasons for their lack of choices. So ‘we’ are the cause of the effect, but then we attempt to merely change the effect…rather than addressing the cause. And we wonder why we fail.
By JimM, May 17, 2008 at 9:06 am #
The U.S. should be doing whatever it can to promote fair wage laws (and enforcement) in Mexico and the U.S. Mexicans are not risking their lives running over here to earn the same wage they could earn where they live. The drastic difference in wages forces them to do it. Many are dedicated family members doing this backbreaking labor (landscaping, harvesting)to send home money to their very hard up families.
Are they here because they are evil, as many seem to think?
As long as we let companies relocate and pay shit wages in Mexico, we will continue to see desperate people trying to jump the borders. Never mind that many of these relocated companies have re-relocated to places like Burma and China so they can pay ever shittier wages and thus reap grater profits, which is obviously all they care about.
So the morons’ way is not to deal with the wage disparity problem via aggressive legislation in both countries USA and Mexico for starters, but to throw up walls and spend ever huger sums on guards n’ guns.
Report thisBy Vince Liberty, May 16, 2008 at 11:57 pm #
Let every person trade directly with every other person around the world without mediation. Complete, 100% free trade is the only answer to the protectionist trade deals our betters in DC rook us into. Why, for example, if we have been peaceful, friendly neighbors with Canada since 1814, do George Bush, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, or Barack Obama need to mediate trade between myself and any Canadian? It completely defies logic and common sense.
Report thisBy DennisD, May 16, 2008 at 5:36 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Well said Jackpine ! There’s more than enough blame to go around.
Report thisBy Purple Girl, May 16, 2008 at 10:26 am #
We had workers crossing the borders everday to work on either side of the border. If the Big three didn’t ahve aposition with you in MI you could go to an Ontario Plant. MI considered Ontario another state- we were Kissin’ cousins.OHHH and their Bars and their Beer- Grand Fun for the ladies at Danny’s and the guys at Jasons (we’d take charter busses with keggers over just so we could party without having to drive- those were the DAYS!)My husband is from Califonia- they apparently felt the same way about ‘Goin south of the border’. Granted we were old married folks by the ‘90’s but seemed sh*t changed even then, then of course 9/11. I now feel isolated from my Canuck Friends- and now they have passed a ‘Passport’ laws for crossing over- $90.00 Bucks!!think I’m going to bother? I’d ahve to add that to the higher prices for merchadise because of the dwindling value of a dollar. I’ve got friends who stil live there- easier to move then to commute within the last 15 yrs- I have not seen them in about the same amount of time. NAFTA was a Farce the first step in sending our jobs (and theCanadians) overseas.We never needed a ‘Trade agreement’ we alrady had One!We have alienated and Kneecapped our Canadian friends and our Mexican Friends.UNLOCK THESE DAMN GATES!!
Report thisBy jackpine savage, May 16, 2008 at 7:31 am #
The Washington Consensus is just as much neo-liberal as it is neo-conservative…if not more so. In fact, a good argument can be made that the two neos function together like yin and yang of imperial design…with the neo-liberal economics being the soft and neo-conservative preemptive war being the hard.
In other words, Mr. Sirota, don’t try passing all these troubles off on your political enemies…the people you’ve been voting for are wholly complicit and eagerly involved.
Report this