Nostalgic for Clinton (sort of)

[Gordon B]

Bill Clinton, for all his faults, brought more honor to the US on trade issues than George Bush and especially the pandering Democratic Presidential candidates. Following are two good articles, today's lead New York Times editorial, and Thomas Friedman's column from five days ago. I am appalled that most of the Democratic party's Presidential contenders care more about agribusiness interests in the U.S. then poor people in developing countries and that President Bush would abandon Republican free market principles in order to court voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio.


Trading Memories

Published: September 30, 2003

Bill Clinton talked a great deal during his presidency about building a bridge to the 21st century, but now that we are here, the 10 Democrats trying to occupy his old residence on Pennsylvania Avenue are pitching the country on the idea of crossing that bridge back into the late 20th century, to a happy time of high growth, low unemployment and government surpluses. As Richard Gephardt, the House minority leader, wistfully put it in last week's debate among the Democratic contenders, "Why wouldn't we want to go back to that?"

Unfortunately, when it comes to America's economic relations with the rest of the world, some of these Democrats, as Senator Joseph Lieberman is quick to scold them, seem to have selective memories about what accounted for the Clinton success. Most of the candidates are selling decidedly protectionist messages, as if seeking to become the Ross Perot of the 2004 race, not the Bill Clinton.

Mr. Clinton was one of the most committed free traders ever to serve in the White House, fighting for passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement and presiding over creation of the World Trade Organization and China's entry into that body. That he also presided over the creation of 22 million new jobs is no coincidence.

Mr. Gephardt often led the fight against Mr. Clinton's opening to the world, and still seems proud of that fact, which makes his attempts to associate himself with Mr. Clinton's results a bit strange. Former Gov. Howard Dean, an early supporter of Nafta, has made protectionism a hallmark of his campaign, recklessly threatening to bolt from the regional trade bloc and even the W.T.O. And though he sounded more moderate last week, Senator John Kerry, a free-trade stalwart in the past, has talked on the campaign trail of "reviewing" the nation's trade deals, and of opposing the Free Trade Area of the Americas, proposed, of course, by Mr. Clinton.

This misguided retreat from the Clinton legacy is especially disappointing in light of President Bush's poor record on trade. It would be nice to see the Democrats attack the White House for imposing unjustified steel tariffs that have cost American jobs and angered our trading partners, but we won't hold our breath. And when asked at the debate last week if he would support eliminating farm subsidies Mr. Bush allowed to be ratcheted up last year, Senator John Edwards essentially answered, um, well, no. What he should have said is that those subsidies do need to be reined in, not only to help the poor around the world, but to ensure the survival of a world trading system that has so benefited Americans.

Some amount of pandering is to be expected at this stage of the campaign. But it is worth recalling that in early 1992, in the face of similar anxieties about a jobless recovery and Asian competition, one Democrat forcefully defended free trade before union groups — Bill Clinton.
------------------
Connect the Dots
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: September 25, 2003



The U.S. war on terrorism suffered a huge blow last week — not in Baghdad or Kabul, but on the beaches of Cancún.

Cancún was the site of the latest world trade talks, which fell apart largely because the U.S., the E.U. and Japan refused to give up the lavish subsidies they bestow on their farmers, making the prices of their cotton and agriculture so cheap that developing countries can't compete. This is a disaster because exporting food and textiles is the only way for most developing countries to grow. The Economist quoted a World Bank study that said a Cancún agreement, reducing tariffs and agrisubsidies, could have raised global income by $500 billion a year by 2015 — over 60 percent of which would go to poor countries and pull 144 million people out of poverty.

Sure, poverty doesn't cause terrorism — no one is killing for a raise. But poverty is great for the terrorism business because poverty creates humiliation and stifled aspirations and forces many people to leave their traditional farms to join the alienated urban poor in the cities — all conditions that spawn terrorists.

I would bet any amount of money, though, that when it came to deciding the Bush team's position at Cancún, no thought was given to its impact on the war on terrorism. Wouldn't it have been wise for the U.S. to take the initiative at Cancún, and offer to reduce our farm subsidies and textile tariffs, so some of the poorest countries, like Pakistan and Egypt, could raise their standards of living and sense of dignity, and also become better customers for U.S. goods? Yes, but that would be bad politics. It would mean asking U.S. farmers to sacrifice the ridiculous subsidies they get from our federal government ($3 billion a year for 25,000 cotton farmers) that make it impossible for foreign farmers to sell here.

And one thing we know about this Bush war on terrorism: sacrifice is only for Army reservists and full-time soldiers. For the rest of us, it's guns and butter. When it comes to the police and military sides of the war on terrorism, the Bushies behave like Viking warriors. But when it comes to the political and economic sacrifices and strategies that are also required to fight this war successfully, they are cowardly wimps. That is why our war on terrorism is so one-dimensional and Pentagon-centric. It's more like a hobby — something we do only until it runs into the Bush re-election agenda.

"If the sons of American janitors can go die in Iraq to keep us safe," says Robert Wright, author of "Nonzero," a book on global interdependence, "then American cotton farmers, whose average net worth is nearly $1 million, can give up their subsidies to keep us safe. Opening our markets to farm products and textiles would be critical to drawing many nations — including Muslim ones — more deeply into the interdependent web of global capitalism and ultimately democracy."

The U.S. and Europe, argues Clyde Prestowitz, the trade expert and author of "Rogue Nation," should actually shrink their farm subsidies unilaterally, even if developing countries don't immediately reciprocate.

"Such a move is essential," wrote Mr. Prestowitz on the YaleGlobal Web site, "not only as a matter of providing a badly needed boost to developing countries, but also because the failure [of Cancún] poses a serious threat to the main hope of generating the economic growth necessary to lift developing countries out of poverty."

If only the Bush team connected the dots, it would see what a nutty war on terrorism it is fighting, explains Mr. Prestowitz. Here, he says, is the Bush war on terrorism: Preach free trade, but don't deliver on it, so Pakistani farmers become more impoverished. Then ask Congress to give a tax break for any American who wants to buy a gas-guzzling Humvee for business use and also ask Congress to resist any efforts to make Detroit increase gasoline mileage in new cars. All this means more U.S. oil imports from Saudi Arabia.

So then the Saudis have more dollars to give to their Wahhabi fundamentalist evangelists, who spend it by building religious schools in Pakistan. The Pakistani farmer we've put out of business with our farm subsidies then sends his sons to the Wahhabi school because it is tuition-free and offers a hot lunch. His sons grow up getting only a Koranic education, so they are totally unprepared for modernity, but they are taught one thing: that America is the source of all their troubles. One of the farmer's sons joins Al Qaeda and is killed in Afghanistan by U.S. Special Forces, and we think we're winning the war on terrorism.

Fat chance.

[RBS]

Thanks for the insightful articles, Gordon.

[walto]

Right on.

[HenryMc]

Food for thought

[Captain Hate]

The people who should be nostalgic for Clinton are the Republicans, since they control everything in the wake of his 8 years of "excellence". Since his crooked ass-puppet, Terry McAuliffe, is in charge of the Democratic party, that trend doesn't figure to change any time soon. Let's see, last year Terry "guaranteed" a victory against Jeb Bush; so he spends an inordinate amount of national party money on that campaign only to have Bush roll by 13 points. If he had any sense of honor (yeah, right) he'd have resigned immediately.

Bob Graham has pledged to ice this geek if he's elected; he's got my vote. The rest of them sound like a bunch of gibbering monkeys with STD's. Or James Carville.

[walto]

I think you and I are the only Graham voters in the country, Cap.

[Gordon B]

If Graham joins Lieberman in chastising the other Democrats for their protectionist positions in the next Dem debate, I'll root for him, too.

[Captain Hate]

Originally posted by walto
I think you and I are the only Graham voters in the country, Cap.

I may have gotten him confused with Howard Dean, Walter; or Howard Stern. There'll be plenty of time before the Ohio primary for me to get it straight; right now it's way too early to pay attention to this. Except to laugh at Kucinich, of course.

Gordon, if you recall I, Clinton hater #1, praised him for expending political capital on getting NAFTA passed.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Captain Hate
I may have gotten him confused with Howard Dean

You did get him confused with Howard Dean, Cpt.

Dean has made unsubstantiated threats to *clean house* in the DLC, removing the Clintonistas. To my knowledge, Graham has not addressed this issue: and I watch this stuff closely.

Graham appears to be on his last legs, however. Reports earlier tonight had him pulling out of the race altogether. Later that report was amended to suggest that only maybe was he fumbling at the rip cord. Either way, he's not on the 2004 aircraft as head bastard in charge.

Veep?

[walto]

You're right, Monte. Graham (unfortunately, in my view) has no chance of going anywhere.

I also think he'd make a good VEEP (and ticket balancer) for any of the other candidates... but It looks to me like it's starting to shape into a Dean/Clark ticket right now. FWIW, I can live with that.

[Gordon B]

Graham Will End White House Bid
Fox News reports Graham will drop out of the presidential race on Friday. The AP says "Graham told a Senate colleague Thursday that he would abandon his struggling presidential bid," though aides said "he will continue to campaign."

Earlier: Sen. Bob Graham "may move to Iowa to save his ailing presidential campaign," the AP reports. "The Democrat also is considering a Southern strategy, focusing his dwindling resources on South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia primaries. Or he may quit."

The AP says Graham's spokesman, Jamal Simmons, resigned. Simmons "has been contacted by other campaigns and may end up working for one of Graham's rivals."
Link | Related News | TrackBack (0)

Clark still hasn't registered as a Democrat. Not to fret, he's still a registered lobbyist.

Question for Captain Hate,

Do you really think that Howard Dean or Wes Clark would be a better President than Bill Clinton?

[Captain Hate]

Originally posted by Gordon B
Question for Captain Hate,

Do you really think that Howard Dean or Wes Clark would be a better President than Bill Clinton?

I don't know Gordon; I know that you're much more pragmatic than I am on this in that Clinton probably governed more conservatively than Nixon did (and without that economic cluster-fuck that the tricky one administered with wage and price controls, gaacckk). But I just didn't like Clinton at all; I thought he was a very polarizing president that would fuck over anybody for his own advantage, including members of his party. He just reminded me of too many schmoozers that I've known at college or after that I've really disliked. I really believe that as time passes he will be regarded as one of the worst presidents ever. Plus he claimed to like Kenny G, fer chrissake; and all that latter day Fleetwood Mac shit. At least Carter, a born again disaster of a president, sang "Salt Peanuts" with Dizzy and was mesmerized by CT. Hell, even Nixon admired Ellington!!

I really believe that as time passes he(Clinton) will be regarded as one of the worst presidents ever. - Captain, My Captain

As much as I don't like the guy, I may disagree with this to a certain extent. BUT, he will certainly go down as the most controversial.

Plus he claimed to like Kenny G, fer chrissake;

Ouch!! Cappy goes for the knockout blow!!!

[Gordon B]

On a personal level, I don't like Clinton at all. He's a born liar and can get away with anything. However, I care about how he governs, regardless of his personal integrity. I shudder to think how he would have governed if he had the type of Democratic majorities enjoyed by LBJ after his 1964 election. To his credit, he moved towards the center fairly quickly after the failure of Hillarycare. I'll take Clinton, sleaze, warts and whatever, over Dean and Clark, hands down.