If there’s anything the Democratic Party should be good for—even in its phase of post-1968 capture by the Secular Left—it should be standing up for American jobs. Organized labor is still a vital part of the Democratic coalition, and as such, it would be logical to think you could count on a Democratic Administration to resist the push for increased global free trade.
It would be logical, but logic rarely plays any role in politics. We’re on the two-year anniversary of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, and Common Dreams reports that the usual results of these deals are well underway—exports from the U.S. are down, imports from Korea are up, and that in turn means the “giant sucking sound”, to borrow the famous phrase of Ross Perot in the 1992 presidential campaign is again in force.
Why would anyone be surprised at these results? They’re the same results that happened when the U.S. cut a trade deal with Mexico in the early 1990s. History is repeating itself in another way—the Clinton Administration was so inspired by the failure of free trade with Mexico that they decided to expand it globally. Obama’s White House is apparently so enthralled with the dismal early returns of the Korean trade pact that they want to expand it across the Pacific Rim.
Lest one think this is all about attacking the Democrats, let’s be clear—George W. Bush was no better, nor was his father. Congressional Democrats—most prominently those with Secular Left outlooks—tend to be far better on this particular topic than do Tea Party Republicans.
But, from the perspective of Blue Dog Reaganite, if Democratic presidential administrations are going to be consistently wrong on this topic, if congressional critics are going to be a minority, then I have very little reason left to be interested in what the modern Democratic Party has to offer.
Every time this party has to choose between its suburban interests and its workers in manufacturing industries—choices that come up most prominently in debates on free trade and the environment—the Democratic Party consistently makes the wrong choice.
This does not necessarily make the Democrats different than corporate Republicans, who make no pretense about being interested in the plight of the average working person. But this is the area where the Democrats are supposed to differentiate themselves. Instead all they do is talk.
Democratic duplicity to the working man was captured when then-candidate Obama was running in the Ohio primary of 2008. To distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton, Obama criticized the results of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and promised to revisit the misguided deal if he was elected. One day later, Obama’s people were reported to be on the phone with Canada ensuring the Canadians that it was all just rhetoric.
Rhetoric indeed. It begs the question of whether the Democratic Party really stands for the average working person anymore, or if all they’ll really go the mat on is free abortions for everyone. Because the U.S.-Korean trade failure and its promised expansion is just another example of an Administration that only has the words down pat, not the actions.
Recent Comments