Sirotablog
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. David writes about political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties.
-
May 14, 2007 6:03 AM
THE SECRET DEAL - DAY 4: Fair Trade Populists Go On the Offensive
This is the fourth in a series of posts following the announcement of a secret free trade deal this past week between a handful of senior Democrats and the Bush administration. It has now been 4 days since the deal was announced, and the specific legislative language of the deal remains secret.With the opening of the new week, fair trade Democrats are going on the offensive in response to the secret free trade "deal" worked out between a handful of senior Democratic congressional leaders and the Bush administration. It is now a full four days since the press conference announcing the deal, and the dealmakers still have yet to release the legislative language of the trade policies in question, instead simply sending out their own press releases and triumphant statements from K Street lobbying groups. Coincidentally (or maybe not so coincidentally) this secretive behavior is happening at precisely the same time the Associated Press reports that "Democrats are suddenly balking at the tough lobbying reforms they touted to voters last fall" with many wanting "to keep the big campaign donations and lavish parties that lobbyists put together for them."
The stonewalling, and the declaration by the Bush-connected U.S. Chamber of Commerce that it has been given "assurances that the labor provisions [in the deal] cannot be read to require compliance" has created a full-on backlash on Capitol Hill and in the heartland. Though some say the specific legislative language of the deal hasn't been written yet, that explanation seems suspect considering the unity and enthusiasm with which top K Street icons have endorsed the deal and the claims of "assurances" corporate lobbyists say they have been given about the unenforceability of the labor standards. Here's the latest news.
DETAILS EMERGE ON LEAD UP TO THE DEAL; LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE STILL SECRET
HILL NEWSPAPER CONFIRMS EMANUEL STYMIED DEMOCRATIC MEETING ON TRADE: The Hill Newspaper reports that "six House Democrats had sought to get House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to put off the announcement of a deal until after the caucus reviewed it, but were rebuffed." As reported on this website last week, a May 10th letter to Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) was ignored in advance of the press conference. Emanuel, not surprisingly, was the Clinton administration official who helped ram NAFTA through Congress. According to John D. MacArthur's groundbreaking book The Selling of Free Trade, Emanuel's specific responsibility at the time was convening weekly meetings with K Street lobbyists to plot about how to put pressure on Democrats to support the deal. Similarly, as an investment banker, he published a Wall Street Journal op-ed on the eve of the China free trade deal demanding Democrats support the agreement, which has resulted in the loss of thousands of good-paying U.S. jobs and further domestic wage deterioriation. In 2004, House Democrats nonetheless rewarded Emanuel by giving him a coveted slot on the Ways and Means Committee - the panel that oversees trade policy.
NAM HEAD ECHOES CLAIM THAT SECRET LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE WILL MAKE LABOR STANDARDS UNENFORCEABLE: The Hill Newspaper reports that former Michigan Republican Gov. John Engler, now head of the National Association of Manufactuers, "said the secret deal would not bind the U.S. to more detailed ILO convention" standards. This claim about the central tenet of the much-touted deal echoes a similar claim by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Tom Donohue.
AP - DEAL DESIGNED TO "PAVE WAY FOR FAST TRACK": The Associated Press reports that proponents of the deal believe it "could pave the way for an extension or renewal of Bush's "fast-track" authority, which allows him to present completed trade deals to Congress for an expedited vote." Earlier reports have indicated that this is one of the major motivations for the dealmakers. As just one example, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) said after the deal that he now supports fast track reauthorization. Rangel's congressional counterpart, Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), has not said where he stands on fast track. Most recently, Baucus refused to answer a direct question about his position at the recent International Economic Summit in Butte (audio of the interchange can be heard here). The question followed a Montana State Senate resolution demanding Baucus use his chairmanship to stop fast track reauthorization.
OPPOSITION TO THE SECRET DEAL MOUNTS
LA TIMES - FAIR TRADERS WILL BE HEARD ON TUESDAY: The Los Angeles Times reports that with a potential revolt on their hands, Democratic leaders added trade "to the caucus agenda [for Tuesday] through a petition letter filed Thursday by six House members concerned about the new policy, including Rep. Linda T. Sanchez (D-Lakewood), a former labor lawyer."
FRESHMAN DEM - MAJORITY OF DEMS OPPOSE THEIR OWN LEADERSHIP: Confirming a New York Times report last week, The Times reports that "Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio), a labor lawyer who campaigned on a 'fair trade' platform and became one of the freshman class leaders, said a majority of the caucus, including many freshmen, opposes the new policy and is demanding more details." These rank-and-file lawmakers "complained that Pelosi compromised too much but also that her announcement of the deal Thursday took them by surprise, included few details and angered key constituents."
PELOSI TOUTS DEAL'S DETAILS, YET REFUSES TO RELEASE DEAL'S DETAILS: In the Times story, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's spokesman said of fair trade critics: "Once they see the details [of the deal], I think people will be supportive." However, Pelosi's office has not yet released the legislative language of the trade pacts at the core of the secret deal.
FAIR TRADE PRESSURE PUTS BREAKS ON COLOMBIA AND SOUTH KOREA PACTS: In light of growing opposition to the secret deal and thanks to intensifying pressure by populist lawmakers on Capitol Hill, the Hill Newspaper reports that "more economically significant deals with Colombia and South Korea, while covered by the deal, still face an uncertain future." United States Trade Representative (USTR) officials and business lobbyists acknowledged there is no guarantee those accords will come up for votes anytime soon.
KRUGMAN - FAIR TRADERS CRITICISM GROUNDED IN FACT: Writing in the New York Times, longtime free trade economist Paul Krugman acknowledges that "fears that low-wage competition is driving down U.S. wages have a real basis in both theory and fact." He acknowledges that in the 1990s he and other economists "concluded that the depressing effects of imports on the wages of less-educated Americans were modest" but "that may have changed." Though he does not take a position on the deal, his piece was an important benchmark for such a widely respected economist.
-
TAKE ACTION
-
About David Sirota
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. He is the New York Times bestselling author of Hostile Takeover. He lives in Denver, Colorado. His daily blog can be found at CREDO Action. He contributes regularly to the Denver Post's Web site, is a senior editor at In These Times magazine and is working on his second book. He has been profiled in Newsweek and the Rocky Mountain News and is widely known for his reporting on political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties. Sirota serves as co-chair of the Progressive States Network, a 501(c)3 organization that supports state legislators and that is a partner of CREDO.
You can subscribe to Sirota's e-mail newsletter by going to davidsirota.com and signing up in the lefthand corner. To find out more about Sirota, download his official biography or see his recent media appearances. You can e-mail him at sirota@credoaction.com.
The views expressed on this blog are his own, and do not necessarily represent the views of Working Assets (publisher of CREDO Action) or the institutions Sirota works for.
-
Recent Sirotablog entries
- "Center-Right Nation" Meme On Tape
- "Center-Right Nation" - Election Day Watch
- Promoting the Guy Whose Lies Boosted Ratings & Killed Thousands
- "Center-Right Nation" Watch - Mark Penn Edition
- Mandate Watch - Bellwether Races/Initiatives To Watch Below the Presidential Contest
- "Center-Right Nation" Watch - Doug Schoen Edition
- "Center-Right Nation" Watch
- Writing Lessons
- Court Says Colorado's Katherine Harris Is Violating Federal Law With Voter Purges
- NEWSFLASH: America Doesn't Like Its Jobs Shipped Overseas
-
More David Sirota
-
This Modern World
-
October 27, 2008 -
October 20, 2008 -
October 15, 2008 -
October 13, 2008 -
October 2, 2008
-
-
Donations Recipients
-
RSS feeds
Discussion
Great reporting! Please keep on this issue like a laser beam.
I wish there was some mechanism or organization that citizens and politically active people could join in order to support progressive populists in the Congress and across the country in their battle against the power and influence of International Corporations, and their control of the Republican Party, as well as a significant portion of the Democratic Party. Maybe there needs to be an organized and staffed "Democratic Progressive Populist Council" to fight the influence of Corporations over the Democratic Party, I would join in a second!
Regards,
Sirota is slowly coming to the recognition that the Democratic Party is fundamentally not the party he should belong to. That the Dem insiders are truly adversaries (and will remain so given the party's basic alignment with corporate priorities) in a growing number of issues that are moral imperatives. The question is how long before working within that "system" will become too noticeably depraved.
Thanks so much for staying on top of this and keeping us informed!
progressivegeek.com
Thank you David for your coverage of this critically important issue.
What this issue points out is that the Democrats don't represent the interests of American citizens any more than the Republicans represent their members. I wish everybody would quit both parties and would register as Independents - and then vote for candidates on the issues rather than party.
Whenever I read one of these assertions that basically states: “there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans, so let’s all abandon the Dems and work for 3rd parties” I wonder if the writer is actually a front person for the far right. Yes, there are a lot of very bad Dems who support corporate interests such as so-called free trade.
However, to say there is no difference between the Dems and Reps is ridiculous. There are innumerable examples of vast differences on human rights, labor rights, trade, the environment, the war, etc. Sometimes those differences are between the Democrats and the Republicans as a whole, more often they are between the Republicans and centrist Democrats on one side, and progressive Democrats on the other. As an example, this article itself notes that a majority of the caucus is in opposition to this “Secret Deal”.
Now, it is probably true that not all of those in opposition are true progressives. Many may merely be trying to position themselves for either primary or general election challenges. But the very fact that so many are in opposition shows that we (the progressive, anti-corporate power movement) are already having a significant impact on Congress. Where is the evidence that following a “3rd Party” strategy can have such an impact? The only independent in Congress is Bernie Sanders from Vermont and even he has failed to join a 3rd party movement.
The fact is, the US system is rigged against 3rd parties. Until we can adopt proportional representation, we will be stuck with 2 choices. But those choices are not between two equally bad versions of the corporate apologists. Corporations basically control the Republican Party. And they would love to control the Democratic Party. But, while they still continue to win many battles (see Tammy Duckworth in Illinois!), progressives are winning even more. This is no time to do what the corporations and right-wingers want progressives to do – join a losing effort to elect 3rd party candidates and leave control of both the Republican and Democrat Parties to the corporations.
Rather, this is the time for everyone who is committed to global justice to recognize that we have the power over time to take control of the Democratic Party and to move it in a progressive direction, just as the right took control of the Republican Party and moved it in a regressive, pro-corporate direction. Our efforts will not be easy. It will not happen over night. It took the far-right corporate Republicans almost 30 years. But the actual voting patterns in Congress demonstrate that this is a realistic possibility versus the “pie in the sky” rhetoric for 3rd parties.
And before anyone challenges me on this, please show me mathematically how it is possible to win a majority of the total voters for a “3rd Party” candidate if you cannot win a majority of the much smaller Democratic primary votes. Even if you can bring new voters to the polls, the number of new voters you need to take over the Dems is smaller than the number of new voters you need to win a majority in a general election.
I apologize if you have seen this posting before, but I have decided to repeat it every time I see one of these “let’s abandon the Dems” postings. Those writers are either “Trojan horses” working for the corporate interests, or people who are greatly in need of remedial mathematics. Yes, we have a long way to go (as of May, 2007, there are only 71 people in Congress who even identify themselves as progressives). And certainly, not all of them are truly progressive. But there are many examples of elected representative who have shown they are honest progressives (such as Barbara Lee, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, Dennis Kucinich, Diane Watson, Russ Feingold, etc.) and only one of them (Bernie Sanders) is not a Democrat.
Do not forget that before the 60’s, when the Democrats had a lock on Congress, it was only because of the Dixiecrats who certainly were not progressives. Despite that, Lyndon Johnson was able to pass voting rights legislation. Since that time, the right wing has regrouped, organized, brought about a realignment between the parties, and, since the election of Ronald Reagan, led us to one failed policy after another. They have been abetted by pro-corporate, neo-liberal Democrats like Bill Clinton, who got NAFTA passed while a majority of the Democrats in the House were voting against it.
The reality is that we already have 3 parties: the Republicans, the centrist Democrats, and Progressive Democrats. It does not seem feasible to change the Republicans. So, we need to work to get rid of the centrist Democrats and elect Progressive Democrats. One of the responders above asks for a Progressive caucus in the Democratic Party. That’s what groups like Progressive Democrats of America are trying to do. You can find them at http://www.pdamerica.org/ This is something that can be done, is being done, and needs the support of everyone who claims to be a progressive. When progressives abandon this effort for the wholly implausible “3rd party” scenario (which has not elected a single member of Congress) the right wing is delighted.
If you still support a “3rd Party” approach, are not a subversive working for the right wing, and still disagree with me, then feel free to contact me when you have succeeded in electing the first “Green, Red, Orange, whatever” candidate, and I will begin to listen. When you have elected 70 of them, enough to overtake the current “progressive caucus” I will begin to take your position seriously. When you have elected more than the majority of the Democratic Caucus who appear to oppose the “Secret Deal”, I will abandon the Dems and join you.
Until then, I encourage you to look at the reality of the situation and, if you are a true progressive, do everything you can to make sure your representative in Congress is more progressive tomorrow than whoever is representing you today. And the best (probably only) way to do that (given the electoral structure we have) is to move the Democratic Party to the left through organizations like Progressive Democrats for America.
Hatuxka,
I think I am coming to that same recognition. I guess the big question is, do you try to reform the Democratic Party, or do you try to create a new Party (a pretty huge task, but perhaps a necessary one)?
You could also have a 3rd Party, that would list good progressive populist Democrats as their candidates in local elections, but run their own candidates against DLC Democrats and the like. Presidentially you could do the same thing, endorse a progressive populist Democrat, run a candidate against a DLC candidate.
Regards,
I'll say it again. Kudos for the fine reporting and good luck on Lou Dobbs.
David,
When I made my response above to Hatuxka, I was remiss in not thanking you for your outstanding reporting on this issue. I have not yet seen it picked up by MoveOn or other progressive sources but I certainly hope it will become a major progressive organizaing issue.
Reforming the Democratic party is a high dubious prospect at best given our current circumstances.
For starters no grassroot/netroot group or coalition of special interests has the power or courage to "fire" politicos who go off the reserveration and without it they are impotent. At best all they can do is put another pol in office and many pols once their lose any loyalty to the people since there is no accountability by the grassroots.
This inability to fire sell-out Democrats will therefore kill any reform movement. These sell-outs are the cancer and corrupting influence thats killing the party and driving people away.
Not once since the implementation of NAFTA has a democratic politician been kicked out by rank and file for betraying the people of this country. Democratic pols. Basically Democratic voters may as well wear shirts with the label "fool me and you can fool me again".
Get the courage to target for removal sell-out Democrats like Pelosi, Hoyer and the New Democrats
and then you can talk about reforming the party.
But right now there is no party reform only noise on the internet. People are better becoming independents and vote for whomever best represents them, whether it be democrat or repub and the hell with party loyalty. Neither party deserves it.
waltc, I think it is as simple as you state it: to hell with party loyalty, that loyalty has been increasingly unrequited. As for the canned taking points above that include a little shot accusing anyone of being right wingers who point out the glaring faults of the Dem leadership,I feel sorry for your lameness. It is perverse to not consider leaving the party based on what Sirota comes up with every day, day-in, day-out, year after year, showing what sell-outs the Hoyers, Pelosis and Obamas and their ilk are. But the progressive dems of America are gonna fix it! Who ya got for us? a Dennis Kucinich type? Not even. Ya got nobody, less even that the third parties you disdain so shamelessly. I can suppose from your stances that you would never "go for the throat" after sell-out Dem politicians the way you go after those who merely point out the obvious, which is equally twisted.
waltc, I think it is as simple as you state it: to hell with party loyalty, that loyalty has been increasingly unrequited.
As for the canned taking points above by Bill Benet that include a little shot accusing anyone of being right wingers who point out the glaring faults of the Dem leadership, I feel sorry for your lameness. It is perverse to not consider leaving the party based on what Sirota comes up with every day, day-in, day-out, year after year, showing what sell-outs the Hoyers, Pelosis and Obamas and their ilk are. But the progressive dems of America are gonna fix it! Who ya got for us? A new and better Dennis Kucinich type? Not even. Ya got nobody, less even that the third parties you disdain so shamelessly. I can suppose from your stances that you would never "go for the throat" after sell-out Dem politicians the way you go after those who merely point out the obvious, which is equally twisted.
waltc seriously mistates my position. I certainly belive in "going for the throat" for the sell-out dems. My point is simple. That can be done by electing better Dems. Since the 3rd party advocates have never elected anybody, I cannot buy your arguments. You disparage every Dem including people like Kucinich. Who have you ever elected? Please get real. The 70 Dems who are part of the progressive caucus are not all progressives. But some are. My suspician that 3rd party advocates may be right wingers is not because I fault you for pointing out "the glaring faults of the Dem leadership." I join you in that. And I am fighting to change those Dems. But, until you can show better results, your advocacy for 3rd parties is wishful thinking at best or the possible "trojan horse" of the right-wing at worst. If you are going to rebut my case you need to demonstrate that you can elect someone better than Kucinich, or Maxine Waters, or Barbara Lee, or any of the true progressives. And even if you refuse to consider these very good people as progressives, the question remains: who have you elected?
This is an article about how the rank and file Democrat is unhappy with the leadership's (by and large DLCers) secret deal. How do posters turn this into the Democratic party doesn't represent the people? The problem isn't Democrats in general, it is the corporatist DLC and as good Democrats we need to get vote them out of office.
Please stop the lunacy. Commenters who claim there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican parties are just plain wrong.
I have to ask where in hell have you been for the last - many, many years. Have you no memory at all? I cast my first vote in 1964 and I have to say that the gap between the Democratic and Republican parties is greater today than it has been in my lifetime.
The general philosophies are so different that the suggestion that they are the same should bring gales of laughter.
People who are GROSSLY FOOLISH enough to suggest a 3rd party have absolutely no sense of reality. Breaking off support from the Democratic party to form a 3rd party will absolutely GUARANTEE a completely dominant Republican party.
Instead of making ANYTHING better, forming a 3rd party would be a catastrophe for this counttry and very likely for your personal lives.
The task and the easiest of the tasks would be to reform the Democratic party. I have to believe that the people upset over the free trade agreements probably don't know that, for example, the majority of Democrats in both houses voted AGAINST NAFTA. NAFTA was supported by the overwhelming majority of Republicans in both houses. Only a tiny handful of Republicans opposed NAFTA.
The 3rd party supporters also have forgotten (or probably never knew) that NAFTA was first put together in the Reagan administration and was later signed by George H. W. Bush. Congessional approval was needed. Democrats controlled both houses and old man Bush never got it before Congress because he knew it would be soundly defeated. That changed when Clinton was elected and was able to peel off enough Democrats to get NAFTA passed. And it took considerable effort and many promises and twisted arms to make that happen.
Different Democratic president and NAFTA may have died a suitably ignominious death. And probably the same with China PNTR.
Reforming the Democrtaic party into, well, the Democratic party is doable and is going on right now. Forming a 3rd party and giving control to Republicans would put this nation into a deep hole that would finish off the republic.
Actual perfection will never be achieved with any party. Perfect should never stand in the way of good.
Join the Discussion