Salon: The populist uprising against free trade

[pampango]

http://www.salon.com/news/globalization/?story=/tech/htww/2010/10/04/free_trade_is_a_bipartisan_platform



"Americans Sour on Free Trade," blasts a Wall Street Journal headline prominently featured on the newspaper's website. "Majority Say Free-Trade Pacts Have Hurt U.S." Note the word "majority." Opposition to free trade in the U.S. is now a bipartisan position, as common to Tea Partiers as to organized labor.

The phenomenon that the Journal is noticing reflects a much deeper distrust of engagement with the global economy that goes back a lot further than the Journal appears prepared to admit. The economic argument for free trade -- that everyone benefits when countries maximize their comparative advantage -- has little sway when the on-the-ground reality is that the winners from free trade in the U.S. seem to be far outnumbered by the losers.

People feel vulnerable, and vulnerability breeds fear. One wonders if it could all have been different -- if the U.S. had a comprehensive health care system already in place that did not link your insurance to your job, or if tax policy didn't disproportionately favor corporations and the wealthiest Americans over the masses, would the average U.S. citizen feel less threatened by global competition? But it seems almost pointless to ask that question now. That ship has sailed. The damage is done and populists of every political stripe are itching for a trade war.

So here's what's going to happen. The rising middle classes of India and Brazil and China will be increasingly engaging in trade relationships between each other that bypass the foundering United States, where the middle class has been hammered and is barely hanging on. Consumer power is moving from the former core to the new periphery. The historical irony is brutal: Just as popular sentiment in the U.S. seems to be hitting a crisis point in terms of our willingness to engage with the rest of the world, our avid and aggressive participation in the global economy has never been more important. The emerging nations of the world are only going to "rescue" the advanced nations if the advanced nations are willing to play along.

Most Tea Partiers Think Free Trade Agreements That Tea Party Candidates Support Are Bad For The Country

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/30/tea-partiers-trade-bad

"Earlier this week, NBC News and the Wall Street Journal released a new poll surveying Americans’ views on trade. The poll found that 69 percent of Americans thought that free trade agreements the United States has taken part in have cost the country jobs, and 53 percent of Americans think these agreements hurt the country as a whole.

Interestingly, the poll also found that opposition to free trade agreements is particularly strong among Americans who define themselves as supporters of the Tea Party movement. 61 percent of self-described tea party supporters said they thought free trade has harmed the United States, just four percent less than union members:

A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 69 percent of Americans believe free trade agreements with other countries have cost jobs in the United States, while just 18 percent believe they have created jobs. A 53 percent majority—up from 46 percent three years ago and 30 percent in 1999—believes that trade agreements have hurt the nation overall. <...>

While 65 percent of union members say free trade has hurt the U.S., so do 61 percent of Tea Party sympathizers. Democratic pollster Peter Hart and his Republican counterpart Bill McInturff, who conduct the NBC/WSJ poll, say the greatest shift against free trade has come among relatively affluent Americans, or those earning more than $75,000 a year."

[Hello_Kitty]

1. Here you go again.

Conflating all opposition to so-called "free trade" with teabaggers.

And like I've told you umpteen times, pampango, destroying the American middle class was the plan all along.

[pampango]

6. Hardly conflating ALL opposition with teabaggers. It is bipartisan, as the article states.

I thought you would be happy that your opinion is catching on across the political spectrum. You can't get a much wider spectrum than (as the Salon article states) union members on the left to teabaggers on the right. :)

From Salon:

"The economic argument for free trade -- that everyone benefits when countries maximize their comparative advantage -- has little sway when the on-the-ground reality is that the winners from free trade in the U.S. seem to be far outnumbered by the losers."

"The damage is done and populists of every political stripe are itching for a trade war."

From Think Progress:

"A 53 percent majority—up from 46 percent three years ago and 30 percent in 1999—believes that trade agreements have hurt the nation overall."

"While 65 percent of union members say free trade has hurt the U.S., so do 61 percent of Tea Party sympathizers."

What do you disagree with? The gist of both articles is that things are going your way in terms of popular opinion. You're more likely to achieve tariffs and other measures if you get bipartisan support. You may prefer that opposition remain a purely left position, but alas you and your arguments are more persuasive than you realize. ;)

[Hello_Kitty]

7. Nice try. Your use of bolding for certain quotes speaks for itself.

You are engaging in the politics of gaslighting and I'm not getting sucked into it.

[pampango]

29. I highlighted the fact that oppositon is bipartisan, the duplicity of tea party candidates,

the opposition spans the political spectrum, and the biggest increase (not absolute amount) of opposition has occurred among the relatively affluent - joining the less affluent who already opposed it. I guess I'll let those quotes "speak for themselves". If you disagree with the facts in any of those quotes, I'd be interested to hear the nature of your disagreement.

[whathehell]

9. I don't understand where you're coming from here..

Are you, perhaps so afraid of being conflated with teabagers that you can't see that this could be a good thing?

A coalition of baggers and union members on this one issue -- a most IMPORTANT one -- could be very advantageous.

[Hello_Kitty]

10. This is not the intention of the OP, who has a long history on DU of pushing "free trade"

And disparaging critics of it.

[whathehell]

12. I see..

but as I said in my other post, it was in Salon.com..I don't know if the OP has had a "change of heart" or not, but I think Salon is pretty reliable, don't you?

[independent_voter]

17. It goes like this

are you against free trade?

well, the democratic party is for free trade

and the democratic party is the party of working people

therefor, if you oppose free trade, you are against working people

[Lost4words]

32. its not clear if you are being sarcastic or not, please clarify,....

[independent_voter]

39. it's a feeling i get sometimes

when i question the democratic party's commitment to fairness for working people vs it's actual 'free trade' record

[Hello_Kitty]

2. Oh, and, unrec. eom

[independent_voter]

3. Free trade DOES suck

it's been the 'check mate' for many handworking middle working class Americans

and what does 'tea party' have to do with this?

why do they have anything to do with whether free trade is good or bad for working people?

the only reason anti-free trade people may have gone to tea party is because the 2 main parties are totally for it, and have turned a deaf ear to anyone who questions it

[Hello_Kitty]

4. Because the OP thinks s/he can shame us

We're supposed to meekly and quietly get used to our new 3rd World incomes and living standards. We're supposed to compete with countries with no pollution laws and hourly wages of less than a dollar.

[independent_voter]

5. wasn't there a senator in the 1950s who played the guilt by association game well?

cant think of his name at the moment

think he had an "-ism" named after him

i've also noticed a disturbing trend of playing the "but some tea partiers believe that too!" card when difficult questions are asked

[whathehell]

11. Are you kidding?

First of all, Salon.com featured this article. Do you think they are some closeted right wing outfit trying to "shame" you?

I DETEST free trade and I don't care if Sarah Palin and her uncle are against it..It STILL sucks and I'd be glad to have virtually ANYONE join in the fight to stop it..Hell, Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Hello_Kitty]

13. The teabagger opposition to it is in line with everyone else.

The majority of Americans of just about every demographic oppose "free trade" because it is so self-evidently harmful. The writer of the Salon piece and the OP are invoking the Tea Party (which is really just the Republican base) in what appears to be an attempt to embarrass progressives into supporting their view. It won't work because people have eyes and we can see what's happening to our economy but they're going to try anyway.

[whathehell]

35. I understand what your're saying..

Do you really think Salon is in favor of free trade, though?

I've always liked Joan Walsh and thought of her as "the real deal".

[Hello_Kitty]

36. Not Salon but this particular contributor appears to be. eom

[whathehell]

38. Okay...I'll have to check him or her out. n/t

[Edweird]

8. 'Free trade', illegal immigration, H1B's, offshoring and outsourcing are all anti labor screw jobs.

[independent_voter]

15. +1000 nt

[The2ndWheel]

18. Don't forget automation

[independent_voter]

20. it's complicated, but different

because automation, while displacing some workers, does make effienceies and makes workers more productive, allowing the potential for higher wages

whereas free trade is simply cheaper labor period, cutting workers in a country out of the production process of that good or service completely

automation doesnt always meen more jobs or higher wages, but free tade always meens lower wages

[The2ndWheel]

21. Don't the people in the other countries have higher wages?

Compared to what country X had before bringing the jobs in, not compared to the country that had the jobs outsourced. It doesn't always mean lower wages. Depending on, of course, one's perspective in the equation.

[independent_voter]

23. that's exactly right, but why would i support trading away our citizen's livelyhoods?

why do people who support the largest military budget in the world think 'protectionism' is a bad thing?

some may think we can give it all away, and that we'll still have enough and the world will be a better place. I AM for helping the world and making it a better place, but not at the COMPLETE expense of my fellow citizen's and nation's survival

and right now, both are on the path to bankruptcy, in a world where there has only been one counrty that ever beleived in bailing out anyone else

[The2ndWheel]

24. I'm sure that's what the original Luddites asked too

And in no way am I trying to degrade the question.

Why would you support it? I'd say that it's increasingly not really a choice of whether you do or not. Because it's not really your job, or even "American" jobs anymore. It's just "a" job, that "needs" to get done, somewhere, by someone, or by something. Again, depending on the particular perspective in question.

I think your question certainly hits at a deep, and foundational root. Like you said, it's complicated. Very complicated. A question, and a topic, with a history and momentum thousands of years in the making.

[independent_voter]

26. Is that you Carly Fierona?

you say

"Because it's not really your job, or even "American" jobs anymore. "

from wikipedia Fiorina said: "There is no job that is America's God-given right anymore"

if not you sound just like her

when we go into debt to china for stimulus to 'create jobs' you're DAMNED RIGHT those are 'our jobs'

when stimulus comes from 'the world', THEN I will agree those arent 'our jobs'

it's not inevitable, it a choice, adn all I'm saying is that we have to make choices more like every other nation on earth, because they are doing better and are more protectionist

(also, I'm pretty sure most luddites dont have computer science degrees)

[The2ndWheel]

33. That's another good point

"when stimulus comes from 'the world'"

We live in a global economy, but still have regional governments. One of those will have to give. The way it's set up now, global corporate interests can play governments against each other. Government only works when it's a monopoly, which it clearly isn't on the global stage.

"Fiorina said: "There is no job that is America's God-given right anymore" "

See, I thought I was sounding a little more like Arthur Jensen from Network. Either way.

"when we go into debt to china for stimulus to 'create jobs' you're DAMNED RIGHT those are 'our jobs'"

If we go into debt to China, is anything that comes after that, before we pay up, ours?

"it's not inevitable, it a choice, adn all I'm saying is that we have to make choices more like every other nation on earth, because they are doing better and are more protectionist"

If American workers do worse as people in other country do better, would people in other countries do worse if we did better? Which brings us back to the global economy/regional government thing.

You're right though, it's not inevitable. Things hardly ever are. Which is why it's so complicated. Would making choices like every other nation on Earth inevitably lead to us doing better? It's possible, depending on what I'm sure is a long list of variables.

I'm not anti-protectionist. I'm certainly not pro-globalization. I'm not sure how far you go with the protectionist idea, but I may go even further than you do. If I wrote what Fiorina would say, it's only because it's the way I see civilization going. Placeless. Which to me is quite sad.

"(also, I'm pretty sure most luddites dont have computer science degrees)"

No, but they also wanted to protect jobs. Not just jobs, but the jobs they felt were their jobs. The way they wanted to do their jobs.

[TexasObserver]

14. "Free Trade" is a lie, and that's why it should be plowed under.

Free trade is not free. It's bought with the jobs of working Americans. It's bought with the lost revenues to communities all over America. It's the paper mill that shuts down and takes 700 jobs with it to some foreign country. It's the part of town where all those workers made their homes. It's their kids suddenly becoming second class citizens because one of the family breadwinners is out of a job and can't find a new one in their little town.

We're the only country in the world that isn't protectionist, and that's what makes the term "free trade" such a fraud.

[independent_voter]

16. free trade is rigged trade, so that American workers always lose

and can only hang on to their standard of living through debt, both at the personal and national level

[mod mom]

unregulated free trade is just another term for piracy.

[TexasObserver]

19. absolutely

When Nixon was president and I was just beginning to have some vague understanding of economics, I read a cartoon in some national magazine which stuck with me all these years.

A factory worker was walking in the back door to his house, where his wife was waiting. He said "Good news, Honey! The president said I'm in the vanguard of the fight against inflation. The bad news is I got fired!"

[Dappleganger]

22. The American worker never stood a chance.

[TexasObserver]

30. They were sold out with cleverly worded propaganda.

free trade, my ass

[Dappleganger]

31. Betrayed by the kiss of a friend. nt

[L0oniX]

25. Corporate bank rolling repuke campaigns = the end of the will of the people.

[kenny blankenship]

27. TANSTAAFT

"Free trade" isn't free. The price of "Free trade" has been the impoverishment and political disempowerment of the working people of America.

People in this country have been fucked over for 30 years, and all you seem to care about is that the fucking they've been subjected to hasn't been hard or fast enough.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. No country has ever risen out of poverty based on "free" trade

Even the U.S. was highly protectionist at one time.

"Free" trade is just a corporate excuse to seek cheap labor and con less developed countries into growing cash crops instead of feeding their own people.

[Waiting For Everyman]

34. We see through telling us free trade is great, when reality says it's a disaster.

Gee, it's too bad so many of us, on both the left and the right, are siding with reality. :sarcasm: It took long enough, but finally we get it.

Years of trying out this free trade thing has shown us plainly and obviously that it's an insane thing to do which benefits no one but the uber-rich. It has decimated the working class. It isn't hard to figure out merely with a grain of common sense... wages will seek the lowest common denominator. That means jobs will offshore, and jobs here will be driven down. If we'd like to work for $1 an hour or less, yes it's just peachy. Without an acceptable global minimum wage and universal health care, it's the stupidest idea ever proposed and has NO CHANCE of being anything but suicidal.

How has free trade been working out for us, eh? That's all the debate that is necessary on this.

[Hello_Kitty]

37. +1000000 eom

[Vinnie From Indy]

40. The fact is that there is no such thing as "free" trade

Free trade is simply a nice sounding word that has NO basis in reality. How can there be "free" trade with a country like China that manipulates it's currency (some say by as much as 40%), allows slave labor and which actively engages in subsidizing the flooding of markets to kill international competitors.

It is all bullshit and America needs a healthy dose of protectionism at this time in history. At the very least, our government should take remedies to counter the blatant currency manipulation of the Chinese which is killing what is left of American manufacturing.

[Romulox]

41. You know who else was against Free Trade? Hitler!

/in the style of the OP

[Vinnie From Indy]

42. LOL!

Thanks for the chuckle!

Cheers!

[pampango]

43. Hey, don't forget Stalin and Mao. They were against it, too.

:)

[Romulox]

44. Also, I'm pretty sure most people against free trade are racist.

Or very similar to racist people, at the very least. :shrug: