Rant: I loathe the neo-liberals almost as much as I do neo-conservatives

[brentspeak]

The "enlightened" DLC/Progressive Policy Institute types who advocate "free trade" (ie. race to the bottom for cheap labor) but who are oh-so Starbucks-sipping, spandex-bicycle-pants-wearing, effete liberal when it comes to abortion and gay rights issues. The Richard Rubins, the Thomas Friedmans, the Robert Reichs -- heck even the Bill and Hillary Clintons (it was Bill Clinton who signed NAFTA and CAFTA into law, after all).

It's not like I'm really opposed to their social views (or to Starbucks -- I drink the stuff often, but I do laugh at non-bicyclists who wear bicycle pants); the problem is that by advertising themselves as champions on these liberal social issues, they have co-opted a good chunk of the Democratic party's bread-and-butter agenda; they've managed to fool people into thinking they're real Democrats, and ended up running the show (Friedman is a columnist, not a politician, but I wanted to use this opportunity to mention how much I loathe him anyway. Actually, he may be both a neo-lib and a neo-con.).

A real Democrat does not support policies which ship American jobs out of the country, lower wages of existing American jobs, and which puts us at the economic mercy of countries like China. Heck, even Jimmy Carter, as much as I admire him, fails the "true Democrat" test on the free-trade issue. FDR, Truman, and JFK must be rolling in their graves at the way the neo-libs have accumulated so much power within the Democratic party.

:rant:

[Freeusfromthechurch]

1. Interesting, very interesting. Something to ponder

Good point

[Ksec]

2. I agree on your economic philosophy

Dems should be fine with free trade until it infringes on our ability to earn a living wage.

For instance, corporations who close factories in the US and reopen them in low wage countries should not be allowed to sell those products back to us. Thats destroying the thing that made us great. A strong vibrant middle class.

[Abuhans]

31. I am getting finer with free trade

What if I want to buy the products of those corporations? It benefits myself in that I value the foreign product higher than the domestic products available, it benefits the corporation for profitting from providing me this valuable product, and it benefits the workers overseas who would not be making as good a living if I was not purchasing their products. The only people who lose are the companies and workers who can not, for whatever reason, provide as valuable a product as others (Whether it be quality, affordability, something else). So if the people choose foreign products, why should we hurt other people to "preserve" the middle class (Which I find to be a dubious assertion).

[brentspeak]

32. "...who would not be making as good a living if I was not purchasing their products..."

Some Chinese worker -- and possibly his or her children -- slaving away 12-16 hours a day for $1 an hour in miserable conditions is "benefiting" from you buying their cheaply-made product? That's their "good living"? So how would we be "hurting other people" to dispense with the so-called "free trade" (which isn't free-trade, as China and India hit our products with heavy tariffs) in favor of fair trade?

And the people aren't "choosing" foreign products; the people have no choice except foreign products much of the time. Go to any department store, toy store, and clothing store and try to locate more than just a few Made In The USA products. In many stores, you won't be able to find a single American-made product.

[Abuhans]

35. The Chinese worker

would be in an ever crappier job (Or none at all) if I wasn't buying their products. They chose that job because it was the best they could get. And you're right it is not right to call it free trade, but what else am I too call it? Slightly freer trade as opposed to the alternative? People are actually choosing foreign products, the reason why it is easier to obtain those foreign products instead of domestic is because the market (The amount of buyers) is much larger for foreign goods than domestic. If domestic products were more valuable to consumers here, than those businesses which sold more domestic goods intead of foreign would be beating out their competitors and would be more prevalent.

[SlipperySlope]

40. I take it you are new here.

That kind of thinking won't make you many friends.

Just saying, you know?

[xultar]

3. So if Jimmy Carter fails your test who passes?

[brentspeak]

6. Edwards, Dean, Ted Kennedy, Kerry, Kucinich, Granholm, Rangel, Schweitzer....

Every Democrat who gives a damn about Americans' livelihoods.

[dysfunctional press]

17. Edwards is a dlc'er- their golden boy.

oops.

[brentspeak]

21. He was a member of the DLC, as is Kerry -- but both are opposed to DLC policies

Both joined the DLC only to give themselves membership in a powerful Democratic group, but both have often voted against DLC-held positions. Both voted against the Singapore and Chilean free-trade agreements, and both want to renegotiate NAFTA. In fact, the DLC Progressive Policy Institute's conservative/libertarian like-minded counterpart on free trade issues, the Cato Institute, rates Edwards as 17% on the support of "free trade"; they call him a "pro fair-trader". http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/John_Edwards_Free_Trade.htm

They give Kerry a 33% rating, hardly in line with DLC policies.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/John_Kerry_Free_Trade.htm

[Zodiak]

30. brentspeak is correct

Kerry might be a memebr of the DLC, but his voting record is far-removed from it. My criticism of the DLC does not extend to Kerry (or former members Gore and Edwards....or Obama despite being courted).

Kerry did vote for a free trade agreement in the last Congressional session, though. Can't remember which one off-hand.

[xultar]

20. Isn't Edwards in the DLC?

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

4. I have a question ?

Why would a good republickin put us at the economic mercy of China? Or is it now just a corporate World?

[zreosumgame]

9. kick-backs

[sendero]

19. Simple..

... their "base" is getting rich making the rest of America poor.

[leftstreet]

5. Nice Rant!

:thumbsup:

[brentspeak]

7. Thanks

:)

[Skidmore]

8. DLC people are not progressive.

You are right about that.

[eallen]

10. Read history. JFK was precisely the kind of neo-liberals you despise.

He slashed marginal tax rates more than Reagan. He signed the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which led to the slashing of tariffs and the Kennedy Round of GATT. The thinking behind NAFTA was a direct consequence of that. Far from rolling in his grave, I suspect JFK would be quite pleased to see how the world economy has grown under the trade expansions that stemmed from his initiatives.

[brentspeak]

13. Was Kennedy PART of the Kennedy Round?

No, he wasn't. It took place from 1964-1967. In any case, JFK was a strong advocate of trade unions, and he was much closer to supporting what would now be called "fair trade" policies than he would to the so-called "free trade" policies -- the latter of which has only managed to increase legalized slavery in the developing world and decrease American workers' livelihoods here at home.

[Warpy]

11. FDR, Truman and Kennedy were all free trade dogmatists

but they saw US plants opening up offshore for offshore consumption while they remained open here for local consumption. They never foresaw US labor paid in dollars competing on a head to head basis with labor paid in third world currencies.

The dogma has now run its course and anyone who advocates for this particular Frankenstein's monster needs to be either given a course of antipsychotics or face a trial for selling this country and its people out for a few fat campaign contributions.

[brentspeak]

34. Excellent job in summing up the difference between the New Deal Dems and the neo-libs

on the issue of free trade. I was trying to boil it down to an easy explanation myself, but you did the job for me. Thanks.

[Toucano]

12. Minor Correction

Bill Clinton did not sign CAFTA into law. CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Act), sometimes called CAFTA-DR, was passed by congress in 2005.

Bill Clinton was not president in 2005.

[brentspeak]

14. Thanks for the correction

I should have known that. I confused his support for it with something else.

[Toucano]

23. No biggie.

It's easy to get terrible legslation confused with other terrible legislation!

I've forgotten more than I recall, I'm sure. :-)

[mzmolly]

15. Indeed!

A real Democrat does not support policies which ship American jobs out of the country, lower wages of existing American jobs, and which puts us at the economic mercy of countries like China.

Though, I'd change the word "Democrat" to progressive, I like your point.

[dysfunctional press]

16. you're preaching to the choir, here...

but lay off jimmy.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. Wait a minute

This is the opposite of almost everything you've posted since I first saw you on this board.

Did you have a conversion experience or something?

[brentspeak]

22. I've think you've mistaken me for someone else

I've been anti-"free trade" from Day One.

[in_cog_ni_to]

24. The DLC is NOT Progressive! DLC = 'Sensible Center'

They aren't even close to being Progressive.

[Zhade]

41. What a coinicidence - they're not close to being sensible, either.

And their "center" is yesterday's conservative.

[happydreams]

25. Clinton, HW Bush, Carter, Kissinger, were or are members of

the Trilateral Commission ("Elite Planning for World Management"). They are all neo-liberals.

[mondo joe]

26. I'm not even sure I can tell who is neo/conservative or neo/liberal any more.

Who is for fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets?

Who is for censorship?

Who is pro-torture?

It's getting very confusing.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Solo_in_MD]

28. Anybody who uses the meme

A real Democrat does not support policies loses any support from me immediately. We are the big tent or we are a splintered domain of ideologues and purists.

Clue: One option wins elections and changes things, the other sits in the corner bitching and ineffective

[brentspeak]

33. So, what you're saying is

that we must accommodate people who are actively destroying the fabric of American society in order to preserve the Democrats' big tent?

On these boards, I've already supported solidarity with DLC-adhering Democratic politicians -- up until after Election Day, that is. Now that the elections are over and the Democrats have gained control of Congress, and we have the necessary number of "D's", it's time for the fair-trade Democrats, not the free-traders, to run the show. There's even a few fair-trade Republicans who I'm glad to have on board.

[JacksonWest]

36. Maybe it's not so black and white.

Maybe. I don't know. It seems simplistic to put people in one of two categories for not supporting one of two absolutes on a buzz-synopsis of an incredibly complex issue(such as free trade). Free trade between nations is ultimately a global equalizer envisioned by Marx. While it will lower American wages-our wages couldn't be so high if we didn't exploit the resources and labor of other countries. Free trade effectively raises wages in other countries while lowering ours.

I don't like it, since I'm not a socialist and think Marx was an idealistic poet, not a pragmatic leader(and he had bad breath)-but true free trade would ultimately be beneficial to the world at the expense of our county.

Additionally-it is a global economy. I don't know how old you are-but if you're over twenty-maybe you can remember joke from your childhood about not "calling China" on the phone, or even "long distance calls". Communication has changed so much, so fast. Communicating with some one in Asia is quite simple and cheap. It's an evolving world.

So, in a nutshell(minus the echo of being in a nutshell) I don't think it's fair to broad swipe all DLC types.

[Solon]

39. Where is the raising of wages in nations that accept such deals?

There are about 3 nations, maybe 4 in the WHOLE world that embraced free trade and actually saw an increase in wages, whether its because of free trade is up for debate, but seriously, for every other nation out there, average wages DECREASE after signing of free trade deals.

[porkrind]

29. Sadly, big business has infiltrated both parties

Didn't RFK say that ~95% of republican and ~75% of democrat politicians are owned by big business and vote for their interests while paying only lip service to the will of the people? Personally, I would guess the figures at 95% and 60%, but the point remains. IMO, the DLC is the right-leaning centrist faction that styles itself as being democratic but represents business interests over mainstream interests.

Despite the myth of one big middle class, America is sharply divided by income and class interests. The rich ruling elite and big business have largely taken over the media, the pentagon, the court system, and state and federal governments. We are subjected to constant pro-business propaganda to make us like how we are being treated.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. Whether or not it's right, I think supporting outsourcing is actually more left-wing than not.

It's undoubtedly bad for the American workers whose jobs are outsourced, but equally it's good for the inhabitants of the countries the work goes to, and it's "liberal" in the sense of liberty.

The basis of left-wing ideology is to help the poor, not just the American poor.

I think there are some arguments against outsourcing at least worth considering to do with the fact that it's effectively a way of getting round labour rights legislation and environmental legislation, but while it may not be a good thing it's not fair to call it illiberal or right-wing.

[Solon]

38. Where have you been? You gave out the whole selling point for free trade...

but seem to ignore the real world at the same time. Since NAFTA has been enacted, Mexico has seen an increase in unemployment AND an overall DECREASE in wages. Other nations have similar or worse records after signing onto these deals. Child labor in factories has increased, armed guards keep them in line, hell, some are CHAINED to their workstations, not even allowed bathroom breaks, just so we can overpay for Nike shoes. 60 bucks for a pair, and it cost a dollar to make, talk about price gouging!

Then there is the kicker, as soon as another nation, with an even WORST standard of living than the one the factory is currently in, opens up to free trade. The companies outsource from those nations they are already at, and congregate in the cheapest nations, leading to unemployment and crashing of what little economy that previous nation had. Race to the bottom, and illiberal to the core.

[LSK]

42. minor technicality: Bill Clinton did not sign CAFTA into law

That was recent disaster thanks to the GOP Congress.