Unlike their colleagues at the opposite end of the political spectrum, I'm not aware of a single liberal --- or, if you prefer, progressive --- intent on trashing our government, despoiling the world economy, and thereby creating widespread misery. Instead, they're doing their level best to preserve and, whenever possible, strengthen the social safety net. This much is true at all levels of government: federal, state, and local.
Fortunately, President Obama and the Democrats didn't give in to the Tea Partiers and their compatriots as they did in 2011. Yet still, during the sixteen days that much of government operation was frozen in place, plenty of damage was done.
Consider this: Issued-oriented polls --- mainstream ones --- consistently indicate that there's majority support for the following items: Job creation, more funding for education, maintenance and strengthening of Social Security and Medicare, tax fairness, and shrinking the military budget (without hurting active-duty personnel and veterans).
The most consistent sponsors and supporters of such legislation are the House and senatorial progressives. Seriously! Yep, good burghers such as Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and Congressfolks Keith Ellison, John Lewis, Raul Grijalva, and, until this year, Dennis Kucinich, whose seat was gerrymandered into nothingness by the Ohio state legislature.
A lot of Americans don't like being politically labelled, and that's understandable. The Gallup organization periodically fields an attitudinal survey, asking respondents to define themselves --- as liberal, moderate, or conservative. The majority consider themselves moderates. Because the term "liberal" has a long history of being stigmatized, I believe that a lot of older respondents prefer to label themselves as "moderates", even if they share values and priorities with self-described liberals.
At least one survey combines this data under one cover: The General Social Survey, funded by the National Science Foundation and fielded once a year by the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago. (For instance, how self-described moderates, libs, etc. feel about specific issues). It's not available on-line, but should be accessible at most public and university libraries.
Admittedly, I haven't given myself a chance to eyeball it, but I'm convinced that the data would affirm my perspective --- that as a nation, we really care about each other and believe in social justice.
Unfortunately, many --- far too many --- of our elected officials don't reflect those values. Let's try to fix that in 2014!
(Also scope out a related post on this blog dated 1/23/13:
"Liberalism: As American as Apple Pie").
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Friday, November 8, 2013
Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership: Another Deal Under the Radar
Earlier today, I watched a recent video from the archives of Moyers & Company, an excellent public affairs program hosted by the seasoned journalist Bill Moyers. (He never misses). His guests were two well-regarded bloggers with backgrounds in business and economics: Susan Webber (who uses the penname Yves Smith) and Dean Baker.
Apparently, both guests have, through reliable Obama administration contacts, been privy to some of the contents of a trade bill that's being ramrodded through Congress: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). (In more genteel circles, this process is known as "fast tracking"). 130 members of Congress have appealed for some transparency regarding this measure. But apparently, they're being sloughed off. Interestingly, the folks involved in this appeal span the political spectrum from progressive Alan Grayson to Tea Partier Michele Bachmann.
Regardless of motive, their mutual concern is justified. Supporters of the TPP live on both sides of the aisle as well.
What's unsettling about this pact, as well as its predecessors, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), is that they were crafted by and for corporate interests. No one else was ever allowed a seat at the table --- labor advocates, environmentalists, or community activists. (H. Ross Perot, who ran a spirited independent presidential campaign in 1992, warned us of the consequences of an enacted NAFTA: a "giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving the US for friendlier environs [read low-wage]. He turned out to be prophetic).
Twelve nations have signed onto the TPP: The US, Canada, Mexico, Peru, and Chile, as well as Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Rounding out the dozen are Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, and Singapore. With the exceptions of Mexico and Vietnam, none of the listed nations (as far as I know) appear to have an extensive history of factory labor abuse. The maquiladoras that once caressed the Mexican border with the US are largely history, as corporate poobahs discovered that overseas labor was even cheaper.
But here's something to consider: the TPP is still a work in progress. Policy honchos in Indonesia (the world's fourth most populous nation) and Thailand are receptive to clambering on-board the TPP bandwagon. Both nations also maintain policies that are tolerant of oppressive working conditions. (The presence of Indonesian sweatshops have been well-documented by Oxfam).
I campaigned vigorously for the president and have no regrets. Furthermore, I recognize that Obama and the majority of Democrats have expressed a far greater concern for social and economic fairness than most of their Republican counterparts. Occasionally, they succeed in acting upon those concerns: consider the Affordable Care Act. As flawed as it appears to be, it's a vast improvement over the alternative, which for a lot of folks was nothing.
Based on what's known about the TPP, it should merit more public attention. It seems to be a work in progress with open-ended provisions, such as enabling admission of additional nations with dicey labor history. If the corporate universe continues to call the shots without any meaningful counter-balance, the world-wide race to the bottom will continue to gather momentum.
Touch bases with your reps in the House and Senate; urge them to defeat the TPP. There's a great, bearded adage: "A stopped clock is right twice a day". Even a stopped clock that happens to be named Michele Bachmann.
Apparently, both guests have, through reliable Obama administration contacts, been privy to some of the contents of a trade bill that's being ramrodded through Congress: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). (In more genteel circles, this process is known as "fast tracking"). 130 members of Congress have appealed for some transparency regarding this measure. But apparently, they're being sloughed off. Interestingly, the folks involved in this appeal span the political spectrum from progressive Alan Grayson to Tea Partier Michele Bachmann.
Regardless of motive, their mutual concern is justified. Supporters of the TPP live on both sides of the aisle as well.
What's unsettling about this pact, as well as its predecessors, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), is that they were crafted by and for corporate interests. No one else was ever allowed a seat at the table --- labor advocates, environmentalists, or community activists. (H. Ross Perot, who ran a spirited independent presidential campaign in 1992, warned us of the consequences of an enacted NAFTA: a "giant sucking sound" of jobs leaving the US for friendlier environs [read low-wage]. He turned out to be prophetic).
Twelve nations have signed onto the TPP: The US, Canada, Mexico, Peru, and Chile, as well as Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Rounding out the dozen are Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, and Singapore. With the exceptions of Mexico and Vietnam, none of the listed nations (as far as I know) appear to have an extensive history of factory labor abuse. The maquiladoras that once caressed the Mexican border with the US are largely history, as corporate poobahs discovered that overseas labor was even cheaper.
But here's something to consider: the TPP is still a work in progress. Policy honchos in Indonesia (the world's fourth most populous nation) and Thailand are receptive to clambering on-board the TPP bandwagon. Both nations also maintain policies that are tolerant of oppressive working conditions. (The presence of Indonesian sweatshops have been well-documented by Oxfam).
I campaigned vigorously for the president and have no regrets. Furthermore, I recognize that Obama and the majority of Democrats have expressed a far greater concern for social and economic fairness than most of their Republican counterparts. Occasionally, they succeed in acting upon those concerns: consider the Affordable Care Act. As flawed as it appears to be, it's a vast improvement over the alternative, which for a lot of folks was nothing.
Based on what's known about the TPP, it should merit more public attention. It seems to be a work in progress with open-ended provisions, such as enabling admission of additional nations with dicey labor history. If the corporate universe continues to call the shots without any meaningful counter-balance, the world-wide race to the bottom will continue to gather momentum.
Touch bases with your reps in the House and Senate; urge them to defeat the TPP. There's a great, bearded adage: "A stopped clock is right twice a day". Even a stopped clock that happens to be named Michele Bachmann.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)