criggs@pipeline.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now as a pictorial representation of the range of today's thinking on free trade I have no problem with this conceptualization. However, Mr. Friedman then goes on to assign places on this grid for some of the participants in today's free trade discussion; I cannot agree with his assignments. His statement on this is as follows:
First, let me state flat out that, while in theory
I have always been
and probably will continue to be a free trader, I
am far more in
sympathy with the trade views of Gephardt and Perot
than with those of
Clinton and Gingrich. I firmly believe trade
between countries whose
economies are equal, where worker rights are bilaterally
supported and
protected, and where vigorous environmental laws exist
and are enforced,
is usually good for the partners. I also believe
that such trade
arrangements help break down cultural and ideological
barriers of
mistrust and national chauvinism, and, as someone
downright allergic to
parochial nationalism of any sort, I applaud any efforts
which encourage
recognition that we are all human beings and that
what we have in common
is greater than that which divides us.
But, to state the obvious, the worthwhile value of
free trade has been
hijacked by a ruthless group of multi-national corporations
in
cooperation with civically irresponsible US business
interests and
government lackeys. Under these circumstances,
it has become tragically
evident that most of the agreements which parade around
these days as
'free trade' are in fact thinly disguised subversive
documents which in
fact serve only to weaken worker rights and environmental
protections
while strengthening the power of, and enabling the
oppression by, those
unpatriotic forces in this country who operate only
in the interests of
their own greed and rapaciousness. It is for
these reasons that I was a
strong opponent of NAFTA, that I continue to oppose
MFN for China, and
that I was so delighted, and completely shocked, by
the defeat of fast
track.
Yet I still support free trade in theory, and also
believe in the
philosophy which Friedman has succinctly articulated,
that of the
Integrationist Safety Net, where the drive for free
trade is conducted
in partnership with a drive to uphold our country's
values on the
dignity of labor and the importance of environmental
concerns. However,
I would strenuously disagree that Bill Clinton belongs
in the same
category as me when it comes to this issue.
Did he not agree to the
anti-worker anti-environment fast track bill which
Gingrich was
pushing? Did he not diss his own Democratic
brethren's concerns by
signing on to this bill and pushing it as hard as
he has pushed for any
item since his inauguration in '92? That scarcely
qualifies him as a
Safety Net-er. I would put him far more closely
on Friedman's grid to
the Gingrich Integrationist Let-Em-Eat-Cake school
of thought.
I also am not entirely comfortable with placing Gephardt
on the
Separatist end of the grid, though I yield to no one
in the level of my
distrust of this weathervane. This is the man
who was a budget-cutter,
a tax-cutter, and a pro-lifer 20 or so years ago.
This is the man who
fought tooth and nail to keep campaign finance reform
bottled up in
conference in the 103rd Congress in 93 and 94, the
last time the
Democrats had the majority in the House. If
he has figured out that
fast track is a bad thing for America, then I am sure
that is far more
likely a tribute to his ability to count dollars from
campaign
contributors than from his ability to count jobs.
Nevertheless, his current political mask is NOT that
of a Separatist.
The very day after Clinton finally screamed "Uncle"
and dropped the bill
Gephardt was giving interviews detailing his plans
to present fast track
legislation of his own which would take into account
environmental and
worker rights' concerns. This is exactly where
I'm at. In fact, the
day after our victory, when I called Public Citizen's
office, got Margrette
Strand, and congratulated them on their superb job,
I opined to
Margrette that the next order of business is to start
beating the drums
and getting organized to introduce fast track legislation
where our
concerns would be dealt with front and center.
This way, in my words,
"we won't find ourselves in March back in a Perils
of Pauline situation, where we're fighting a long-odds David vs. Goliath
battle all over again." And lo and behold 24 hours later I see Gephardt
on CNN saying precisely the same thing.
This is the sane rational approach to legislation,
where you don't let
the perfect be the enemy of the good, and where the
goal is to move the
ball down the field, and if one can't move it 20 yards
then it's better
to move it 10 yards than sideways to the ideological
left or right.
Dick Gephardt is now engaging in this approach, to
his credit. I hope
Public Citizen, and the other organizations who fought
the good fight on
fast track, will now do the same. This is precisely
the approach which
supposed centrist Clinton hysterically refused to
use, and it's what got
him defeated. Just as the bitter-end liberals
led health care reform to
its spectacular crash-and-burn in '94, which was a
tragedy, just as the
bitter-end right-wingers led budget-balancing to a
crash-and-burn series
of government shutdowns in 95 and 96, which was also
a sad day, so now
the bitter-end free-traders-at-any-price like Clinton
threaten to crash
and burn free trade, which would also, in the long
run, be a tragedy for
this country. Far better the Integrationist
Safety Net approach of an
admittedly corrupt but skilled politician like Gephardt
than the
bitter-end free trade approach of a Gingrich and Clinton,
or the
red-eyed separatist nationalism of a Buchanan or others
of his ilk.
So to get back to Friedman's table, this is where I would place the participants in this discussion, and I have had the presumption to add my name and location to the table:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my opinion, the future of of any viable national
Reform Party that may be formed in the next few years rests on the manner
in which they handle this issue. The challenge of how to balance
the need of the country to remain an open, inclusive, and tolerant nation
with the need to stay true to our ideals concerning the rights of the worker
and the rights of humanity to a protected environment is a paramount hurdle
for any new third party to overcome. Mr. Friedman's piece is, I believe,
a constructive beginning in the effort to create parameters for a productive
discussion of this issue, despite his serious errors of personal philosophical
characterization. Would you agree that this is a reasonable basis
on which to start a discussion on free trade? Or do you think that
Mr. Friedman is all wet? Or do you think that I'm all wet?
Or do you think that we're both all wet? Whatever your opinion is,
please don't hestiate to let me know by filling out the form below.
Be sure to indicate in the Title of your Message the name of the Musings,
"Extremist Clinton" to which you are responding. Thank you.
Of course, if you prefer to contact me privately, off-the-record, feel free to do so at