Email List
Most Popular This Week
- Study: Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Linked to Cancer, Autism, Parkinson's
- Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- The Life and Death of Words, People, and Even Nature
- You and Your Family Are Guinea Pigs for the Chemical Corporations
Popular content
Today's Top News
Toward a New Washington Consensus
You've probably heard that John McCain once said, "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues." This line is regularly referenced by Democratic television pundits as evidence that McCain is unprepared to lead the country during a recession.
The criticism is certainly valid, but it ignores something more troubling. It's not that politicians like McCain "need to be educated" about economics, as he admitted. It's that they do not comprehend how economics impacts international affairs.
Behold McCain at a recent town meeting.
"We need our Canadian friends, and we need their continued support in Afghanistan," he said. "So what do we do? The two Democratic candidates for president say they're going to unilaterally abrogate NAFTA. How do you think the Canadian people are going to react to that?"
Opinion-makers, think-tankers and other assorted conventional wisdom spewers depict McCain's thesis as unquestioned truth. They claim that though most Americans oppose our trade policies, the world's masses love them, and if we change those policies we will lose allies.
This rationale justifies the fabled Washington Consensus-the set of right-wing globalization measures currently destabilizing the world economy. And because our politicians' international curiosity begins and ends with turning French fries into Freedom Fries, this rationale goes unchallenged in America's political debate.
Facts, however, are persistent things-facts like the Toronto Star report showing "almost half of all Canadians [believe] NAFTA should be renegotiated," with 80 percent saying it has done little or nothing for workers. McCain wonders how Canadians will react to NAFTA criticism, but the results are already in: According to polls, they prefer the NAFTA-bashing Barack Obama by a five-to-one margin over the NAFTA-glorifying Arizona senator.
"Canadians believe NAFTA needs serious work," said Jack Layton, leader of Canada's New Democratic Party. The likely prime minister candidate told me he wants to reform the pact because it helps corporations overturn laws and because its lack of standards forces workers into a wage-cutting, environment-destroying race to the bottom.
"NAFTA has become the template for other trade negotiations," Layton said. President Bush says that's terrific-that, for instance, rewarding Colombia's brutal government with a NAFTA-style pact will quell anti-Americanism from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. But Layton said these deals are "the real problem" for America around the world-and he has more pesky facts to support the assertion.
The Los Angeles Times reports that polls show animosity toward U.S. globalization policies is growing throughout Latin America. Mexicans now oppose NAFTA by a two-to-one margin-predictable considering their country's plight. In the 14 years preceding NAFTA, Mexico was among Latin America's fastest-growing economies. In the 14 years since, it is among the slowest.
When I spoke with Costa Rican economist Otton Solis, he told me, "Many Latin Americans see these trade agreements as an imposition." He pointed to accords helping agribusiness crush local farmers and pharmaceutical companies inflate medicine prices as typical examples of America foisting corporate-written edicts on poorer countries.
Solis narrowly lost his 2006 bid for Costa Rica's presidency, and he plans to run again on anti-Washington Consensus themes. He noted that just as in the United States, the public in South America is not clamoring for lobbyist-written trade deals-"only the elites are." Far from a diplomatic panacea, Solis said, these policies help anti-American rulers like Chavez, who cite them as proof of imperialism.
Now there is the possibility of change. Come November, if Americans elect leaders who are serious about reforming trade policies-a big if-then we may get a government that understands the relationship between economics and foreign policy. We could see a new Washington Consensus: one that actually reflects public consensus at home and abroad.
David Sirota is the best-selling author of "Hostile Takeover" (Crown, 2006). He is a senior fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network, both nonpartisan research organizations. His daily blog can be found at www.credoaction.com/sirota.
© 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
5 Comments so far
Show Allso let me see if i have this right.
mccain... the newest inductee to the neocon party is wrong about something?
...and that's news to us "attention-payers" how?
must've been a "senior moment"
Don't be an ageist. If you want to criticize McCain for his ignorance, that's fine, but please don't fall into the trap of blaming it on senility just because he's in his 70's.
The idea that the USA is a democracy could not be further from the truth,democracy needs alternate ideas and political parties,preferably mare then 2 parties,in the United States there is only one party with 2 wings,the conservative republicans and the moderate Democrats.
If you have touble with this concept ,then look at who we have runnung for the Next President.
John(bomb,bomb,bomb)Mcain
Hilary (i will obliterate Iran)Clinton
Barack(all options are on the table)Obama
All chasing the right wing vote,the Bible belt states
All willing to do and say anything to get to the oval office
So you see who ever wins,America loses and Democracy,well that's just a word that sounds good,but for god sake don't fool yourself that we are actually going to have democracy in this country,ARE YOU CRAZY,that's for left wing radicals and unpatriotic dreamers and socialists,and we are Capitlist
and damn proud of it,remember 1%of the population own 95%of the countries wealth and thats the way it's going to stay.
So you will continue to lose your homes and health care ,and your education budget,well how the hell do you expect us to fund the wars and still educate our people,Wall street needs to be satisfied that we have the next war on the table,for war means profit and jobs and money laundering and drug trafficking.
And then there is the task of pleasing our master,Isreal and keep the Lobby Happy,we can't do all these things and still keep our population healthy and housed and Educated,have you lost your marbles.
America has been overthrown by Israel,without a singlt shot in anger,they control US foriegn policy,they control the Federal Reserve,they control Congress and they control the Media,now that is FULL SPECTRUM DOMINATION
Good article in terms of NAFTA, pro and con, and it's okay that Billary's position is excluded by Sirota, for we know the Bill part is very guilty in the establishment of this damn elites' racket scheme called an 'FTA', and that she's most likely not going to stop supporting the crimes of husband Bill.
And it is 'FTA', for it's 'F' and 'T', and 'A', even if the 'F' and 'A' is only for the ruling elites to "benefit" from. It does free them from living and operating their businesses like honourable, non-treasonous, intelligent, ... people would never want to do; while when the latter do wrongs that are really harmful to others, then these are corrected a.s.a.p. Once the latter people become aware of their errors anyway; and that means that they need to be made aware of the problems.
It does not give them real freedom of any ethical kind, but when evil happens, then it's because it's being "freely" exercised.
Free for the relatively few of them compared to the far greater number of us, the victims of this economic and treasonous racket; only.
And I disagree with the first post by satr9prodxns , for while he or she may not have learned anything from the article, not everyone knows what McCain's and Obama's views are on NAFTA. It's the first time I've read this about either of them; but then I haven't been a supporter, still being near the commencement of supporting Obama and only somewhat, for he has much self-correction to do before his political doings and understanding (vs not) of LAW satisfies me. He clearly needs a serious course in LAW and one specifically of the kind that Dr Francis A. Boyle can or could provide with GREAT expertise. But, anyway, I only think that Obama's evidently better candidate than both McCain and Billary are.
Why did Sirota NOT mention Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader though?!! Because he's biased, or he doesn't think they're worthy of mention due to being yet another who stands solely or strictly by the view that neither of these two candidates stands any chance at all in winning the presidential election. Okay about the latter reason, and only sort of, far from fully; for we need to think and live based on sound respect of ethical principles and the USA is supposed to be a [democratic] republic!
Even if it was true that they stand at best a remote chance of winning, this does not mean that they're at all unworthy of mention whenever any campaign issues are referred to in the context of speaking of candidates running for office. Au contraire, a true educator does NOT contribute to hiding what should not be hidden.
I'm of the 'full disclosure' principle, and to exclude these latter two candidates' campaigns is to NOT be FD! And that strikes against serious [democracy] as far as I'm concerned.
As for Canadian politicians of official parties recognised by the govt authority known as Elections Canada, Jack Layton certainly is NOT alone in opposing NAFTA, and if he speaks of NAFTA needing to be reformed, and I'm sure he does, then the leadership of the CAP, Canadian Action Party, a tiny and barely heard-of official party in Ca, has stronger policies with regards to NAFTA, the corrupt or despotic, capitalist, imperialist, elitist abandonment of the official role of the Bank of Canada, the SPP and NAU, as well as the GWoT and other important issues. CAP covers pretty much all critical issues, and is very right most of the time, from what I've seen or read so far.
CAP only lacks candidates, but has some who've been running, and the number of them is not skyrocketing, but there's been an increasing number since I first learned about the party around a year ago. I don't agree with absolutely every word of what the party says, but for the MOST part do. CAP is also a sort of spin-off from the NDP, the New Democratic Party, of which Jack Layton is slated to run as candidate for PM. The founder of CAP did this after having been an official member of the NDP.
Nonetheless, it's still good that Jack Layton, who is nationally known, is for minimally reforming NAFTA.
But there's always that little "catch" and which is that the words of all of these candidates, [besides] Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader, for their political and social track records speak well for themselves; well, the words otherwise are only campaign statements and I wonder if Layton would hold to these once elected to the PM-ship, if he is elected to that position. He'd hopefully not do a copy-cat of the PM of the province of Quebec, Jean Charest, for as soon as he took over the office, he immediately dumped all of his good campaign pledges, which perhaps not solely, but still very much are the reason he won the election. When this expedient (faster than can snap your fingers, nearly anyway) dumping of his caused public outrage, what was his response? "What? I never said those things, you people are all in dreamland; the many thousands who were outraged based on observed FACT were lost in dreamland", he said. He did not state those words precisely, for I just paraphrased, and used the quotes for only demarcation, but it's very much what he definitely did say. I'm a witness and capable observer, and the thousands or tens or hundreds of thousands who were outraged were NOT all dreaming up his campaign pledges.
It's sad that Sirota spoiled the article by omission; omitting mention of Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader, as well as of Mike Gravel, if he's still campaigning.
But it's an otherwise good article; only having improvements that could be made.