Further Debunking ...
David "Village Idiot" Sirota has what he thinks is some backup for his DLC bashing. Isn't that cute. It thinks its people.
To wit .....
a) I'm about as far from "Washington's money-drenched cocktail party circuit" as one can get. Yet here I am nodding in agreement with about 90%+ of what the DLC and PPI put forth. Where's my big fat corporate check for all this? Seriously, Dave ... end of the year, the challenge is set forth to compare tax returns. Up for it?
b) The fact that a newspaper headline states the DLC "ATTACKS DEMOCRATS" doesn't mean that's the case. I'm not sure what they teach you about journalistic credibility at The Nation, Dave, but usually when you want to support a case that involves something like "The DLC Says ...." you'll find it more straightforward to actually quote the DLC instead of some of the dubious news sources I'll gleefully highlight below ....
c) I cannot believe anyone wishing to stake his future in the party on the mass appeal of trade protections and class warfare actually quotes the Washington Times. Simply amazing, David. Kudos to you for once more establishing your true Democrat bonafides. Got credibility?
d) The claim of "DLC ATTACKS DEMOCRATS FOR BEING "ANTI-CORPORATE"" is substantiated by all of zero quotes by anyone affiliated with the DLC using the term "ANTI-CORPORATE." The sound you hear is complete and abject laughter eminating from Casa del Greg.
e) What could be better than quoting the Washington Times? Fox News! For crissakes, Dave ... which party are you trying to appeal to again? Zell Miller appreciates your support.
f) Sadly, the best Sirota finds from a decent progressive rag, TNR, amounts to this scathing quotage: "The DLC renounced [single-payer type proposals] and endorsed a more moderate proposal that did not provide universal coverage." WOW! Now how about convincing the other half of America that doesn't want a Canadian style system that limits doctor choice. Anything on that David??? That the DLC wouldn't support a single-payer system ought not be a shock. The majority of Americans don't support it once they understand what it does. What was that tactic you had of looking at polls earlier, David?
g) Sirota finds one vote from the year 2000 that has both Breaux and Bayh opposing drug reimportation. My find was from a vote in 2002, with Bayh supporting it. Breaux is Breaux. I'm not his biggest fan. Although I like a few of his pet issues very much, anyone that connected to Louisiana establishment has the benefit of suspicion on my part. Now Bayh, on the other hand, either flip-flopped, or there are case-by-case differences that need to be viewed. Here's Bayh's stated position:
While drug reimportation is not my first preference, I support providing Hoosiers with easy access to affordable, effective, safe drugs. I will continue to evaluate all proposals, including drug reimportation, based on those principles.
Sounds to me like he's gonna take it on a case-by-case basis. May not make the hyper-rabid-lefties like Sirota happy, but there's something to be said for this. And like I said, he's got a more recent vote for reimportation. But you'd never know that from Sirota. Besides, is the really the hottest of buttons? I mean ... seriously. Didn't we just lose the 2002 election because we tried to make it a referendum on domestic policy in the shadow of 9/11 and Iraq? What lesson did you learn from history Dave?
h) CAFE Standards ... as I offered, yes, the DLC favors an alternate approach. One they claim accomplishes the desired end result better than the CAFE laws do. They make their case. Does Sirota bother making a case that CAFE Standards are the best, most effective way to reach the desired outcome? Don't be silly. Guess you'll have to look for more polls to back you up, Dave. Because facts certainly aren't. BTW - don't polls still show a majority of people thinking Hussein was responsible for 9/11? What of that poll, Dave? Are you following that one as well?
i) Free trade ... sorry dude, still on the wrong side of history. Deal with it.
Actually, though ... one point to raise here about trade. Although I'm pretty much down with Bayh (although wish he'd take some charisma tips from .... well ... anyone), Bayh does have some solid free trade votes on record, but he's been pretty vocal about supporting Bush's since-repealed steel tariffs. So Bayh has the dubious honor of being too free trade for Sirota yet facing a few questions from someone like me.
But just as the case with Bayh's votes on drug reimportation, Sirota offers no subtlety in his analysis. I mean, that would require tact and dignity and who the hell wants any of that when he's got the added pressure of making a name for himself in liberal media circles. Good luck with that David. I guess it makes life easier for people like me when the other side has zero credibility.
Comments
CAFE standards are not, in fact, the best way to go. Gas taxes are.
Posted by: praktike | December 17, 2004 09:56 AM
I agree that Sirota's lost his mind. But:
1) You've got to stop peddling this stuff about "the wrong side of history." It's just silly. I could present immense evidence proving that secularization and sexual liberation are inevitable. But that doesn't seem to stop the DLC from urging an attack on "Hollywood values." Sometimes it's politically smart (not to mention ethically justified) to resist powerful trends.
2) Even if history had a clear trajectory, the pace of change is not predetermined. There is a strong argument that the shift to free trade is best done gradually in order to protect those caught in the transition.
3) Moreover, there is AMPLE room for a moderate reformist attack on the current system governing international trade, which is anti-democratic. It not only takes economic decisions out of public control, it awards significant power to the autocratic leaders who deny citizens political rights. The idea that the WTO and NAFTA are beyond reproach is dogma. Examine the Maastricht treaty if you want to see free trade thoughtfully done.
4) Trade policy offers Democrats another plausible opportunity to prove their nationalism. Yes, supporting the war in Iraq would help on the same score, but we'll never out-macho the GOP on defense. At the very least, we might lower ourselves to exploiting the issue, as Republicans do. Trade is a wedge issue, yet we refuse to wield it out of an inexplicable purism. I'd like to see a more creative, open-minded approach.
Posted by: AWC | December 17, 2004 10:19 AM
Re: Wrong side of history ....
Agreed that my all-too-quick dismissal of the debate is silly. I blame my own upbringing in Economics (imperfect an artform as it is) as the cause of my own adamant stance. While I think there's a worthwhile discussion of political fixes to deal with the upheavals brought on while we wait for "the long run" to play out, I still tend to be more supportive of free trade than most on either side. Naturally, I'm also not running for any office, so go figure.
There's nothing Calvinistically predetermined about the inevitability of free trade, but history is a pretty good guide on the costs and benefits of the two sides of the debate. Without going so far as to work in a Smoot-Hawley example, I offer my own timeline on this, as many Dems used to point to Japanese keiretsus and trade protections as the cause of their historically brief economic growth surge in the 80s. Now, the holes in that argument are more gaping. When judged as matters of broad principles, freer trading nations have outperformed protectionist ones. On that, I rest my "wrong side of history" hat.
Now, I'd be remiss to not underscore a point once made in debate with (ironically) a conservative student back in my college years. In discussing free trade, which I advocated and he sought to come to terms with, I was asked: "Well, what if China produces cheaper goods, but they do so with child and/or slave labor?" My reply was something like "That's a political question, not an economic one." I don't offer that as a dismissal of child labor, but rather to ackowledge that sometimes even free traders such as myself allow for political questions to affect the "free-ness" of free trade. To the extent we each accept these limitations, it reflects on the values we hold nearer and dearer than cheap goods and services. Child labor? Yeah, I'm all for outlawing it and I'll pay an extra buck for my shirt in order to know I'm doing my part. Ensuring that an outdated plant somewhere in the Carolinas has a few more years before they're done in? No, sorry ... not for me.
Yet here, we get to a matter of degrees. I mean, what constitutes "free trade" and what constitutes "fair trade" is often in the eye of the beholder. I was much more forgiving of Kerry's "fair trade" broadsides since his votes in favor NAFTA and the like earned a benefit of a doubt with me. But when Dick Gephardt incorporates the same term, I seek out the nearest Econ textbook to hurl at my television.
I think this above point gets to part of what you describe as gradualization towards free trade, and I'm not dismissive of such efforts. In fact, I think many of the moves under debate represent *JUST THAT*. NAFTA, for example, still left a great deal of tariffs and fees in place. MFN-China still leaves in place a huge number of tarrifs. But what seems to come from the further-left is not a debate for a different degree of gradualization, but rather a rollback in the gradualization already made.
There are still corrections that can be sought out without rolling back such efforts. Look no further than the previous debate over which professions to include for trade adjustment support. As the latest bout of outsourcing hit more and more programmers, these people were finding they couldn't apply for the same benefits a factory worker could even though both of their employers took production overseas. Those sort of corrections, I have no problem with, and I advocate them just as strongly as I do anything else.
As for the democratic aspects of trade agencies, I tend to agree with you. But obviously, there's nothing moderate about WTO protesters. Once more, context matters. If it's you and I debating increased democratic control over trade enforcement ... no problem. If its between me and someone who uses that as a front for abdication of such enforcement agencies altogether ... problem. Once more, degrees of difference matter here and I've got no problem with worthwhile complaints of the status quo. Of course, Sirota offers nothing even close to this. His broadside is against free trade ... period.
Lastly, I completely agree that trade has often been used as a substitute for machismo on foreign policy. I just happen to think that's part of the problem. Maybe it's just me - I rarely claim to be normal - but I think on both fronts, I'd rather favor that which is right, that which is best for society as a whole, on both areas. In other words, I'm not worried about scoring macho points when I say we should have 5,000 troops in Sudan, finish the job right in Iraq, and start putting heat on Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea ... I'm just advocating what I think is the best approach. Same with trade. Same with anything. If I come across as macho on any front, I assure you and all readers, it is completely incidental, if not laughable.
Posted by: Greg Wythe | December 17, 2004 10:54 AM