Kirk as USTR - Changeiness or Change?

by: David Sirota

Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 10:17


News this morning is that former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk is going to be nominated U.S. Trade Representative, after fair-trader Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) dropped out. So does this appointment represent only changeiness or does it represent real change? Hard to say.
David Sirota :: Kirk as USTR - Changeiness or Change?
On the changeiness side is the Dallas Morning News report noting that labor leaders "aren't sure what to make" of Kirk on trade, and that as mayor, he was "considered an ally of business interests." Additionally, Kirk has been a corporate lobbyist for the tobacco, energy and transportation industries - all which have an interest in continuing the NAFTA trade model.

On the real change side, however, is Kirk's positions during is failed 2002 U.S. Senate run and his strong statement advocating for Obama on CNN in 2008.

The Nation's John Nichols noted in 2002 that "Rep. Ken Bentsen, a Houston Democrat who voted for the current Fast Track proposal when it came before the House last December, lost a March Democratic primary for an open U.S. Senate seat after his opponent, former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk, said he would have opposed Fast Track." Likewise, during the Democratic primary when Hillary Clinton was trying to pretend she never advocated for NAFTA, Kirk appeared on CNN to advocate for Obama by explicitly touting the Illinois senator's commitment to fair trade. Kirk said, "We're never going to have a more responsible trade policy if we don't change the climate in Washington" (h/t The Custom House).

Thus, on balance, it's difficult to know what the Kirk nomination represents. I'd say it's clearly a less overtly progressive nomination than an explicit fair trader like Becerra, and, considering Kirk's business ties, I wouldn't be surprised if Kirk ended up being the standard-issue corporate sycophant who has occupied the U.S. Trade Representative office for the last few decades.

Then again, there is reason to believe he could be a progressive and that implementing Obama's fair-trade campaign promises wouldn't be totally antithetical to his past positions/statements in support of "a more responsible trade policy." Granted, that's a nebulous phrase - corporate lobbyists, for instance, think a "more responsible trade policy" is one with more corporate protections and fewer protections for humans. Meanwhile, progressives think a "more responsible trade policy" is one that better prioritizes workers, the environment and the macro economy. I'm inclined to believe Kirk meant the latter, not the former, as he was advocating the candidacy of a guy campaigning as a progressive.

So, in short, it's difficult to state anything totally conclusive about the Kirk nomination. As the Texas AFL-CIO says today, "The jury's out."

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Kirk as USTR - Changeiness or Change? | 9 comments
There are more Republicans (4.00 / 3)
than progressives in the cabinet.

Kirk seems just like the rest.

So far, the only groups left out of Obama's Ameirca are gays and lesbians, and the democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

But it's nice to see the latter-day Rockefeller Republicans finally find a home.

I've bene losing "hope" lately.  Between Warren and the sheer weight of centirst choices, it doe snot look good.

And the big stimulus is endorsed by Feldtein and Lindsay.  Saving capitalism is nice, but not necessarily progressive change.  

My gut is telling me, like FISA, there will first be a delay on EFCA and then tepid support.  No political capital by Obama.  I hope I'm wrong, but nothing to date gives me confidence.

I have both criticized and defended Obama, but I find hope for change lacking now.

I could have sworn (0.00 / 0)
Mary Sutley was openly homosexual.  I guess I'm wrong or maybe Obama took her out of the bus, threw her under it, when he let Warren in for a 3 minute speech.  Or perhaps it's the GLBT community who is doing the bus throwing here.  
[ Parent ]
Chu? Solis? Shinseki? (0.00 / 0)
They are not progressive?

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power
[ Parent ]
well, (4.00 / 7)
it's not Harold Ford.  So I guess that's something.  It's just that I didn't work my ass off for months for "at least it's not Harold Ford."  Sigh.
Here's the real problem (0.00 / 0)
I just don't trust any politician from Texas, Republican or Democrat, to do right by ordinary folks.  
Not even Jim Hightower? (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
Betrayal (4.00 / 1)
David, I admire your fortitude in unrelenting calls to work to bring progressive change.  Honestly, my hope that our efforts will make any difference are fading fast.  The Lucy-football problem has kicked my ass.

Welcome to the post-democratic United States.  Highly intelligent people work and beg and plead for progressive governance, but the pleas fall on deaf ears.  Warren was the last straw for me.  There may be some progress toward a saner way of life, but nothing of the magnitude that we desperately need.  

Our government has become a sham, and our future looks very, very bleak.  One day people will look back and wonder what our Democratic leaders were thinking when they sold out our values.  One day people will wonder why the common people allowed most of our production to be outsourced to other nations.  That's a positive view.  A negative view would be that there won't be much of a civilization left for anybody to look back on history from.

I'm too old to keep trying to kick the football.  Good luck changing the world.  You're gonna need a whole lot of it.

What I Want To Know Is... (0.00 / 0)
...why Obama doesn't just symbolically keep the appointment vacant to send the message that we don't need any more trade deals right now.  Why have a trade rep if we're not looking to negotiate new trade deals?

But back in the real-world, I think that it's important that Barack Obama outline his vision for how the U.S. be part of a global economy.  That's never been there quite so much as the stunted "NAFTA/CAFTA have been bad to manufacturing workers."  

If there's are arguments for and against the "personnel is policy" thing, I think we first need to know what the Obama policy outlook will be on trade and globalization.

If picks mean something... (4.00 / 1)
then what you say should mean something:

Thus, on balance, it's difficult to know what the Kirk nomination represents. I'd say it's clearly a less overtly progressive nomination than an explicit fair trader like Becerra...

Bacerra was, by all accounts, Obama's 1st choice and did not get the post by virtue of Becerra's own career path decision.  If Obama was signaling something with Bacerra it would stand to reason that he sees the same in Kirk.  Too many of these picks are viewed as the tail wagging the dog.  A Mayor pretty much has to be an ally of business interests, it's a necessary part of the job and a city's tax structure.  Obama has been clear in his stance both by what he's said on the trail and his interest in Becerra.  I think it's clear here if anyone is changing, or being given the chance to act in the way he truly believes, it is Kirk.  

Kirk as USTR - Changeiness or Change? | 9 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox