Memo to Obama: You Can't Represent the Uprising While Undermining It

by: David Sirota

Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 17:13


This is an ongoing series from the national tour for THE UPRISING. You can order The Uprising at Amazon.com or through your local independent bookstore.
2581824136_fec1f79696_m.jpg
NEW YORK - I'm in New York City for tonight's annual gala for the Progressive States Network. In researching my newspaper column that comes out later this week, I caught two stories on the wire that suggest Barack Obama thinks its possible to both represent the populist uprising that I describe in my book, while also undermining that uprising.

Here's the first story, from the Associated Press about the Obama campaign trying to court labor unions.

Yet, as Obama courts organized labor, we get this from Fortune magazine:

Obama: NAFTA not so bad after all

The general campaign is on, independent voters up for grabs, and Barack Obama is toning down his populist rhetoric - at least when it comes to free trade. In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee suggests he doesn't want to unilaterally blow up NAFTA after all. "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake."

Clearly, Fortune breathlessly overstates what's going on here (which is typical of "journalist" Nina Easton), and I think Obama could be solid on trade. However, I'd still say this really shows the persistent power of Big Money over Obama and the Democratic Party. Here you have a policy - NAFTA - that is among the most unpopular policies of the last generation, according to polls. This is a policy that is one of the key catalysts in today's populist uprising on both the Right and Left. Here you have a candidate who campaigned against it in the primary. And within weeks of getting the general election, here you have that same candidate running to Corporate America's magazine of record to vaguely reassure Wall Street about that same policy.

This is precisely what the populist uprising that I describe in my new book is all about - a backlash to this kind of politics.

Obama is trying to find a "third way" on a binary issue. He's trying to make everyone happy - and he seems to think you can simultaneously appease Corporate America and American workers on trade rules that inherently force politicians to take one side or the other. You either have trade rules that are aimed at helping ordinary workers, or trade rules that are aimed at padding corporate profits and enriching a transnational elite. The idea that you can have both - or worse, that the NAFTA model does both - is absurd.

But this is Obama's M.O. - he wants to please everyone. The problem for him is that the public - based on polls - knows that these policies are binary and are screwing them. If he talks out of both sides of his mouth on this issue, he will fail to represent the uprising and take advantage of this populist moment - and he will likely lose the election. That would be a huge tragedy.

David Sirota :: Memo to Obama: You Can't Represent the Uprising While Undermining It

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
NAFTA/Free Trade Not Going Anywhere Anytime Soon (0.00 / 0)
I think this says more about the idiocy of that whole "No, I hate NAFTA more than you do!" battle Obama and Clinton had during the primary.  NAFTA has led to economic benefits for the U.S., but it has also negatively impacted our economic diversity.  We can't stop these type of agreements from being signed in the future due to the tangible overall benefits of cheap imports; the best we can hope for is that both corporations and labor groups are respected parties to discussion on these agreements.  

Imports May Be Cheap--But They're NOT Inexpensive (4.00 / 3)
Beyond the cost in eroding our manufacturing base, and the cost in shifting political power away from both ordinary people and democratic processes in general, there are at least four other major costs these goods entail that I can think of right off, that rarely get discussed:

(1) Generalized economic instability--both here and abroad.

(2) Loss of backup capacity, the ability of people to make do with reduced trade in times of economic turmoil by increased internal production facilitated by barter, black markets and government financing.

(3) The cost of pollution from trade transportation (thousands of premature deaths annually in California alone) and from un-regulated or poorly-regulated development (China has roughly 3/4 million deaths from pollution annually). There are other costs as well--congestion costs, for example, opportunity costs for businesses displaced, etc.  But premature deaths from pollution are big-ticket, and increasingly trackable.

(4) Inferior quality--my clothes do not last anywhere near as long as the clothes I grew up with. Children are notoriously hard on clothes, but I had union-made hand-me-down shirts that lasted for 4 or 5 years, a couple of courduroy shirts--as a teenager--I can remember probably lasted 10.

So, yes, the goods are cheap.  But that's because the hidden costs have all been externalized.  They aren't in the marketplace, but that doesn't mean that someone, somewhere isn't paying them.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Obama is sounding like Bill Clinton ver. 2.0 on NAFTA (4.00 / 4)
Bill also paid lip service to Labor and Environmentalists regarding free trade but he did not follow through for them.  I expect Obama to do the same unless the Progressive Movement unites and pressures him and Congress to bolster Labor and Environmental standards in those trade agreements.  Of course, when you protect Labor and the Environment, you are called "protectionist".

Well Sorry For You (0.00 / 0)
people who didn't see this coming. Obama speaks with a forked tongue on many issues. NAFTA is just the beginning. If yo didn't believe me witness his support of a Blue Dog at the top of the front page as I type this.

And Obama hasn't even been elected. At least Bill waited until he was safely in office before screwing people. Obama doesn't
even respect you that much. Keep those checks flowing so yo can support more 180's and help get Blue Dogs elected.

And the front page keeps pushing Obama's win in spite of today's news? First it was Kos who turned out to be a Libertarian instead of a Progressive. What next?


[ Parent ]
The Problem With A "Third Way" Is--We're Already On It! (4.00 / 3)
What we've got is Bill Clinton's "compromise" from the 1992 campaign!

Compromise is the problem.

Not the solution.

We've been compromised far too long.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Oops (4.00 / 1)
Fortune Article Selectively Quotes Obama, Misleads On NAFTA Position.

An article from Fortune Magazine, entitled "Obama: NAFTA not so bad after all," captures the Democratic candidate walking back his previously stated positions on the controversial free-trade agreement. Touting a forthcoming interview in the magazine, Obama is said to be "toning down his populist rhetoric," and goes on to imply that "the presumptive Democratic nominee suggests he doesn't want to unilaterally blow up NAFTA after all." Not that the candidate ever said any such thing. In fact, when pressed on the matter by Tim Russert at the MSNBC debate in Cleveland, Obama said that "we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced."

But while Obama has repeatedly stated his intention to work within the existing NAFTA framework to get a better set of standards and safeguards, he has not made some full-circle recantation of his NAFTA criticism, as this article implies.



Right (0.00 / 0)
terrible, unfair headline.

Also terrible is Obama regretting his populist rhetoric.


[ Parent ]
Sirota (0.00 / 0)
Why would you say Obama might be "solid" on trade?

In general, I think you've gone soft on Obama.

As you know as well as anyone, he voted for the Oman pact, the Peru Pact, the Singapore pact...

If this is solid, I'd hate to see squishy. He openly he admits he wants to split the difference on trade between moderates and progressives.

And his squishiness on this issue is exactly why we won't be getting a fair-trading VP.


This doesn't show that "big money" is influencing Obama (0.00 / 0)
You say, "I'd still say this really shows the persistent power of Big Money over Obama and the Democratic Party."

But isn't it entirely possible that Obama sincerely believes Nafta merely should be "fixed" rather than thrown entirely out? Is that position really so indefensible that it necessarily implies corruption?


After the election (0.00 / 0)
If Obama wins - and I certainly hope he does, esp. given the alternative - this just shows how important it is that we keep the progressive pressure on him after he takes office. Winning the election is just the beginning, and there will be ZERO time to sit back and relax because the Rethuglicans will be on attack mode instantly. Suddenly all that "respect for the office of the President" stuff will be a thing of the past.

We'll have to be openly supportive of the good things he does, and we'll have to be extremely strong, vocal and active about pushing him in the right direction on everything else.


Good to See Obama isn't pandering anymore (0.00 / 0)
It's good to see that Obama is not pandering to the Lou Dobbs "populist" types anymore. Given his academic training, it would be idiotic for anyone to actually believe he was against free trade. It would be like a biologist not believing in evolution. I mean for God's sake, he was a professor at the University of Chicago. Yes, there will be displacement, but the only way for long-term growth and innovation to create new jobs is through free trade. Yes, there have to be some caveats in terms of the environment, etc., but these "put up walls" arguments are the intellectual equivalent of arguing for creationism in my opinion. I'd go into more economic terms, but I'd probably bore people. This whole debate reminds me of one of my favorite West Wing episodes from the 5th season entitled "Talking points." If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend:

http://www.westwingepguide.com...



Demockracy.com


Trade isn't the problem in and of itself .. (0.00 / 0)
free trade sucks .. fair trade is better .. there is a difference .. NAFTA and its type are just give aways to the corporate elite

[ Parent ]
Well then, Obama and Al Gore (0.00 / 0)
pandered their asses off in MI just a day or so ago.  Obama is on record, clearly, as pro-trade as long as it doesn't screw over US workers and the environment.  In January, we'll see exactly what he means by this pro/con position.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
I don't know if it's because he truly believes this stuff (4.00 / 1)
or because he believes that pretending that he does is his easiest, safest and surest path to power and success, but I haven't exactly been reassured about who Obama really is, and what he really believes and intends to do if he wins, since he won the nomination. The thing that first made the lights go off in my head was his AIPAC speech, which was over the top even for the pandering that it was expected to be. Is this man a stealth semi-conservative and hawk, or just another politician who will say and do whatever it takes to win?

Four points:

One, I still believe that among the viable candidates, he was the best that we had this year. For all his faults, Clinton would have matched or exceeded his on every one of these counts. And clearly, he's vastly preferable to McCain.

Two, someone like Obama is what you get when your party has been on the outs for decades and a shell of its former self, i.e. a political opportunist who whispers sweet nothings in your ear and then does the exact opposite. We've been through this before, with Bill Clinton. Until the party as a whole gets its act together (and as long as it has people like Pelosi, Hoyer and Reid leading it, it doesn't) and rebuilds bottom-up, we will continue to see this sort of thing.

Three, he's running a general election campaign, which invariably calls for veering to the center to get all those swing voters. If he wins, he may yet veer back to the left, even if not far enough for many of us. And look at his overall legislative record in the US and IL senates. Not massively progressive, but not conservative, either.

Four, none of which precludes us from watching him carefully and criticizing him when and where it's called for, to hopefully keep him honest (as it were) and not let him take us for granted. That's how this is supposed to work.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton







Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search