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.
-
February 13, 2008 8:22 AM
Smart Move: Barack Obama Goes Populist In the Home Stretch
In my nationally syndicated newspaper column last week, I outlined some of the difficult terrain Barack Obama faces in trying to both court working-class voters and avoid the media's racist characterization of power-challenging African-American leaders as race-centric radicals. This is a very, very difficult thing to do, and I sympathize with Obama in moving carefully up to this point.
But with the next round of states overrepresenting for the constituencies Obama has done most poorly among - working-class whites and Latinos - he knows he has to try to thread the needle. He has to try to offer up more full-throated, class-based populism. And indeed, that's what he's doing.
In his victory speech last night, Obama hammered the North American Free Trade Agreement, previewing a major economic speech today. Here are some excerpts:
"It's a Washington where decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits, but none for our environment or our workers who've seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear; workers whose right to organize and unionize has been under assault for the last eight years...So today, I'm laying out a comprehensive agenda to reclaim our dream and restore our prosperity. It's an agenda that focuses on three broad economic challenges that the next President must address - the current housing crisis; the cost crisis facing the middle-class and those struggling to join it; and the need to create millions of good jobs right here in America- jobs that can't be outsourced and won't disappear.
For our economy, our safety, and our workers, we have to rebuild America. I'm proposing a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years. This investment will multiply into almost half a trillion dollars of additional infrastructure spending and generate nearly two million new jobs - many of them in the construction industry that's been hard hit by this housing crisis. The repairs will be determined not by politics, but by what will maximize our safety and homeland security; what will keep our environment clean and our economy strong. And we'll fund this bank by ending this war in Iraq. It's time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together instead...
It's also time to look to the future and figure out how to make trade work for American workers. I won't stand here and tell you that we can - or should - stop free trade. We can't stop every job from going overseas. But I also won't stand here and accept an America where we do nothing to help American workers who have lost jobs and opportunities because of these trade agreements. And that's a position of mine that doesn't change based on who I'm talking to or the election I'm running in.
You know, in the years after her husband signed NAFTA, Senator Clinton would go around talking about how great it was and how many benefits it would bring. Now that she's running for President, she says we need a time-out on trade. No one knows when this time-out will end. Maybe after the election.
I don't know about a time-out, but I do know this - when I am President, I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers. And I'll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I've been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate - we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America."
This is really terrific stuff, and I say that as someone who has been critical of Obama in the past for his timidity on issues like trade - issues that make the Establishment particularly uncomfortable.
Politically, the benefits to Obama of voicing a populist message on trade are obvious. Recent polls in the Wall Street Journal and Fortune magazine show that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to America's current lobbyist-written trade policy. While this trade policy may be popular on K Street, it ain't popular on Main Street. And as it relates to Obama's message of reconfiguring the political map and attracting Republican voters, a populist line on trade is perhaps the single most powerful tool to do just that. A post-2006 election poll for the Democracy Corps and Campaign for America's Future showed that among Republican voters who considered voting Democratic that year, the GOP's support for unfair trade deals was the top reason they considered switching. While Clinton insultingly says many "red states" Obama won are unimportant because they supposedly can't be won by a Democrat on election day, these numbers suggest a populist message on trade against a "free" trader like John McCain (R) could profoundly change the map.
Substantively, Obama certainly hasn't been as aggressive as many would like on trade, and my reservations about him on this issue will persist. However, this is undoubtedly an encouraging step and it's fair to say he understands the real-world impact of this issue. This is a person who represents Illinois and who talks about working in the shadows of shuttered steel mills. With the departure of John Edwards, Obama is a candidate whose top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, is the only remaining top presidential economic guru who acknowledges that our current trade deals are horrifying - rather than wonderful. And though we've seen people like Bill Clinton promise as candidates to get tough on trade and then as president do exactly the opposite, this is a different candidate and a different era - with a much more angry public.
True, Obama's a bit late to this - but as someone concerned more with movement building than with an individual candidate, I say better late than never. And, after all, the primary process is a time that can truly shape candidates in a genuine way. As just one example, Howard Dean was the moderate, near-DLC governor of Vermont, and had a very authentic and profound conversion into a more proud progressive populist during his 2004 presidential run. We should embrace that kind of transformation - and hold out the possibility that perhaps a similar dynamic is playing out with Obama on an issue like trade.
Sure, there's some opportunism here as well. Obama is likely trying to walk down the path John Edwards first courageously blazed in this race. He is looking out at the next cluster of primary states and knows that these are the ones that have been hit hard by NAFTA and other rigged trade deals. He looks at Ohio and sees Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) - a man who was elected in 2006 based largely on his opposition to our current trade policy. He also sees the New York Times report that former President Bill Clinton is going to be campaigning in Ohio - and knows that the best way to make that boomerang against his opponent is to remind Ohio voters that it was Bill and Hillary Clinton who jammed NAFTA down the Buckeye State's throat.
But opportunism isn't bad. If Obama sees his opportunity in voicing a progressive, populist message on trade, then that's a good thing. That means that we have a leading presidential candidate who sees being a populist and a progressive as a major opportunity. For the progressive movement, that's what success looks like.
Obama is sure to be berated by national pundits for going populist - it's precisely the kind of message that drives well-heeled Establishment propagandists across the partisan spectrum crazy. From Joe Klein to David Broder to David Brooks, questioning the economic elite is seen as the ultimate blasphemy. As Sherrod Brown told the Nation this week, when he ran in 2006, "I got one newspaper endorsement in the state of the big nine papers." Most opposed him because he dared to challenge the economic orthodoxy that says we must have trade deals that encourage corporations to eliminate jobs, destroy the environment and exploit workers, while legislating protectionism for patents, intellectual property, copyrights and other corporate profit shields.
But Brown didn't cater to elite opinion - he was talking directly to voters. If Obama can withstand the inevitable onslaught of scorn from the Punditburo, his new populism may deliver him the presidency.
-
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
G-d what a steaming pile from Obama and as usual short on substance and you realize that this is just talk by him. Remember what Clinton said then did and what happened to all those "populist" senators we elected in '06.
Besides who is stupid enough to believe that politicians keep their word?
And please don't pretend that Obama is playing some sort of game - where he pretends to be a centrist when campaigning to protect himself from that terrible MSM and once in office becomes some radical reformer.
And here is a real gem by Sirota:
Obama is a candidate whose top economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, is the only remaining top presidential economic guru who acknowledges that our current trade deals are horrifying - rather than wonderful.
Dead wrong: Hillary has the staunch critic of "free" trade deals Dick Gephardt as her advisor.
As for Goolsbee he is a senior economist at the DLC and PPI and who is lauded by people like George Will. These should be warning signs to any informed Democrat.
And here's a gem from Goolsbee himself:
""I'm a University of Chicago economist and no one is ever going to be more in favor of open markets and free trade than an economist, so you would presume I'd be for anything that has the words 'free trade agreement' in it and all I'll tell you is this: I do believe there's no one more in favor of open markets than me . . "
Here's George Will on Goolsbee:
"Is Goolsbee dismayed about widening income inequality? Yes, but with a nuanced understanding. The stagnation of middle- and working-class incomes, and the anxiety this has generated, is, he says, a most pressing problem, but policymakers must be mindful about trying to address its root cause, which Goolsbee says is "radically increased returns to skill."
And here's a link to Goolsbee slam on Michael Moore's movie "Sicko":
http://www.slate.com/id/2169454/
Tell me do any of you feel comfortable with a man like this advising the next possible president of the U.S.?
Obama has three more corporate rats as economic advisors as well: Jeffery Liebman David Cutler and Robert Rubin. Liebman is a big supporter of privatizing social security and who is well regarded by arch conservative think tanks like AEI and CATO.
Then there's David Cutler.
excerpted from a piece by Gina Kolata of the NY Times:
Another adviser with a particular interest in health care is David Cutler, a Harvard economist who was also an adviser to Bill Clinton-surprise, surprise. Cutler wrote an article for the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 asserting that "The rising cost ... of health care has been the source of a lot of saber rattling in the media and the public square, without anyone seriously analyzing the benefits gained."
Anxious to show the good side of rising costs, Cutler and a group of other economists defend the idea that a powerful and profitable medical industry can serve as an engine of economic growth in the USA.
And it gets worse.
And lastly there is one of the architects of "free trade" and globalization Robert Rubin.
If you folks doubt this, go google these 4 men starting with Goolsbee and read it for yourselves.
Here's another gem by Sirota:
"Substantively, though Obama certainly hasn't been as aggressive as many would like on trade, it's fair to say he understands the real-world impact of this issue.
That is pure bullshit and you know it, Obama's real record on trade, off-shoring and in-sourcing mark him as a labor arbitrage warrior and threat to the working people of this country.
If you are going to spin for someone, do it for someone who doesn't have a gang of corporate thugs for economic advisers and who has a record for standing up for the working men and women of our country.
Obama doesn't deserve support from any supposed liberal or progressive.
Like McCain, he probably knows squat about economics. With Obama advisers Waltc has given reviews on, it sounds like more of the same, not change is what is going to happen. The shame is that our politicians don't have more of a grasp of economics and don't need to to get elected. You cannot split democracy down the middle by being incompetent about economics and run the country properly, because economis is at least equally as important as the rest put together. This has been the case all to often and we don't need it now.
Damn, Walt hits another one out the ballpark! There's nothing more that I need to add but this...
Mr. Sirota, you're too smart to fall for this nonsense peddled by Obama. How can the same person who wrote the incredible "Mr. Obama Goes To Washington" could be this easily sway by such propaganda? You're letting me down, man.
Oh I haven't fallen for anything. As I wrote, I have a ton of reservations about Obama. But it's not really about him - it's about the fact that he sees an opportunity here. It's a good thing that candidates are talking about this stuff - whether its genuine or not, getting these issues even into the debate is important.
The problem here is conventional economic wisdom. What these economic advisers of Obama represent is just that, because there is no viable alternative on the radar to the present system. What is needed is a new economic paradigm that remakes the global economic system so that it is fair to all nations. There is no such now. I am pushing an idea for one in my book Parity Democracy called parity economics, but it hasn't exactly hit the radar screens. My theses is that the present world economic model is wrecking havoc on much of the world and the cause of massive immigration and broken nations. It is the result of the leading industrial nations fixing it so that global trade favors their policies to the detriment of the third world that can't compete. The current model is based on comparative advantage which in my view is a complete fraud.
Obama's proposal: National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank that will invest $60 billion over ten years
That's equivalent to 3% of the combined Bush tax cuts for the rich ($2 trillion over 10 years).
More profound than eye-catching would be:
$1 trillion over 10 years for affordable rent-to-buy town/county-homes and other measures that directly increase household security (and, of course, leverage multiples of additional Main Street economic activity), thus liberating socially constructive entrepeneurial energy and creativity, unlike anything deregulation or trickle-down tax cuts have ever done.
David,
What's the point of Obama talking about it when you know that his own voting record shows that he has no intention whatsoever of reigning in these "free" trade scams but instead allowing them to further extend to the point of totally collapsing this country to the point of no return? And why aren't you praising Ralph Nader for fighting against these scams even if he's choked by the Democratic Party who's scared of his pro-FDR stance exposing the party's hypocrisy? Give Nader a chance !
GrantBurkeVT
Remember how fast he pulled his post on Matt Taibbi's article excoriating Democrats just a few days ago and looked how he's stopped doing pieces exposing frauds like Obama and other shit weasels in the Democratic party from just a year ago.
This ought to tell us exactly where Sirota's loyalties lay, so forget about him endorsing anyone except Democratic approved candidates.
waltc,
Sometimes I too can't keep up but it is so depressing and really drives me nuts. Like George Lakoff, Sirota keeps wishing that the Democrats will ever turn out differently but they will NOT, at least not for the better. I guess his refusal to answer my questions about why he won't give real progressive independents like Ralph Nader any mention, let alone an endorsement, just because he is not a Democrat is starting to pervade my angry skull. For the most part, Sirota is great and will address lots issues that hardly get a peep let alone a progressive take on them in the media or in the Democratic Party itself, at least while when it's not "election" year. But when he desperately falls for the remaining candidates, none of which are anything close to progressive, he kind of reminds me of my good dog turned bad and rolling over to the bandit at a critical moment. As you have pointed out, NOTHING has changed about any of these candidates for the FRAUDS they have been and will continue to be.
In another post, I even questioned Sirota's support of Sanders, for real or just because he's been there long enough. Below is my post.
As much as David Sirota is against partisan war syndrome, his giving progressive independents like Ralph Nader no show all the while trying to pick a few "bright" spots for these otherwise TAINTED candidates left in the Democratic Party makes me wonder if he too has become a part of the syndrome. I often wonder who Sirota would have supported if a Democrat had run against Sanders and Tarrant. And if Sanders had started out running for Senate without ever having run for Congress, would Sirota have even supported him? I wouldn't have minded voting Democrat but painting a few bright spots about any Democrat all the while OVERLOOKING his or her controversial stands especially on the economy is rather troubling.
P.S.: I know I must sound utterly insane to keep railing for Independents but every single move the Democrats make for the Military Industrial Complex and Corporate America at the expense of our freedom, civil liberties, and the working, lower, and middle classes themselves each and every day pushes me further away from Democrats and more locked in the Independent column. I can understand if Sirota does not want to answer my questions but once the Democrats get DRUBBED in November be it the White House, Senate, and possibly even the House, he might want to take the time to give these questions a thought.
GrantBurkeVT,
Don't forget that in just about every presidential election, half of the voting age population doesn't vote or even bother registering to vote but for the past 30 years, it's completely understandable given the lackluster candidacies of both parties. Some people may not like any of the parties or may not be interested in politics as their reason. But in the survey which claimed that the biggest reason people don't vote is they couldn't make it to registering on time, this myth is easy to tackle. First, when presented with lackluster candidates in both parties and with Independents being left out until the last minute, why would the average Joe and Jane bother giving a higher priority to registering when they would much rather try and save what's left of their broken economies? If the candidates had really proven that they could and would deliver on their promises, most people would go out of their way to make time for registering and without corporate influence on the candidates keep their candidates' feet to the fire. Short of a SEVERE ECONOMIC COLLAPSE, it'll take a hell of a lot of motivating to get 10s of millions of voters to vote Nader. What's more likely to happen though is these disaffected voters will either not vote or vote for the known devil Mccain with at most a few million protest votes.
I'm not buying any of this crap. In fact I believe that this whole screed is absolutely without substance just like everything else that Obama's selling.
I wonder where Sirota comes up with the idea that "This is really terrific stuff"
Just to start; the $60 billion over 10 years for infrastructure is lame. That's a paltry $6 billion per year. The American Society of Civil Engineers reports that America's infrastructure needs $1.5 trillion just to make the nation sound again.
And this business about "I don't know about a time-out, but I do know this - when I am President, I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers."
Our trade agreements already have supposed protections for workers and the environment. The problem is that those provisions are systematically ignored. There are no teeth in the agreements to lend force to those provisions. The missing word in all of these agreements is TARIFF if those tenets are violated. Once again Obama is saying absolutely nothing.
If Obama is so committed to 'fair' trade agreements what was he doing voting yes for the NAFTA for Peru deal. He failed his only test regarding 'fair' trade.
I really like this quote "I won't stand here and tell you that we can - or should - stop free trade. We can't stop every job from going overseas. But I also won't stand here and accept an America where we do nothing to help American workers who have lost jobs and opportunities because of these trade agreements."
So what's Obama suggesting here; yet more 'training' for jobs that don't exist or is he perhaps suggesting that American workers be trained to empty bedpans. I have to ask, why not prevent jobs from going overseas?
But the real jackpot here, the line that gives up the scam is this little gem:
"create millions of good jobs right here in America- jobs that can't be outsourced and won't disappear."
Jobs that can't be outsourced! What jobs can't be outsourced? Jobs that are geographic in nature can't be outsourced; like plumbers or carpenters. That's fine but we can't all be plumbers and electricians, a community consisting of plumbers and carpenters is an absolute absurdity.
If Obama is committed to strengthening America by rebuilding the strength of America's workers he can begin by firing his entire staff of economic advisors including Goolsbee who Sirota has completely wrong, Cutler who wants to 'incentivize' the health care industry by protecting profits and Jeffrey Liebman who wants to privatize Social Security. Obama's erroneous claim that Social Security is in crisis should have set off alarm bells when coupled with Liebman's advocacy of privatization. His economic staff consists entirely of 'free' market advocates. Obama hired them and anything he says to the contrary is nothing more than a scam.
Obama's initial enemic suggestions for ameliorating a recession, tax cuts, provide additional clues about Obama's deceptive talk about workers and markets. Obama's solution for the mortgage crisis, a $500 tax credit for people in trouble, sounds like something out of the Republican playbook.
Give Hillary Clinton this; she came up with a good comprehensive plan to forestall and/or recover from a recession as well as a more thorough plan for dealing with the mortgage crisis. Clinton's policy recommendations demonstrate a commitment to use government to solve problems and strengthen the nation internally and are a pathway to a deeper examination of the core elements in the destruction of our communities and the serious tear in our social fabric.
Obama's current rhetoric sounds like a campaign tactic for the Ohio primary and is all too easily picked apart. The insincerity is blatant and insulting.
Obama's rhetoric of 'hope' and reconciliation seem little more than bipartisanship for its own sake and indicate an unwillingness to undertake the sweeping reforms needed in a nation pillaged and looted by the very people he wants as partners.
As Mr. Jefferson wrote to Mr. Smith, "the tree liberty ..." ... well, you know the rest. The reforms needed in this nation won't be accomplished without some blood letting and anyone who promises otherwise is the lowest of charlatans.
Yes, this is a much more angry public and that can be an engine for change. So far Obama's clearly demonstrated that his campaign is based on the worst of what people claim they hate about politicians.
It's disheartening to see Mr. Sirota sucked into this vortex.
Folks, don't worry. Once the election is over, assuming we even have one since the Bush gang has the power to cancel at their will, Sirota will recover. Until then, poor David is too sick to post anything that makes sense. Maybe the DLC brainwashed him with their Kool-Aid ?!?!?!?!?
As for Obama and free trade, Obama would have to first stand up and acknowledge that NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, WTO, FTAA, Peru FT, etc ... are NOT FREE. They were rigged to wip out the middle/working class and create armies of working/lower/middle classes fighting against one another all the while the upper elites sit back, smoke their cigars, and enjoy the show !
Join the Discussion