Free Trade is the enemy of democracy. In ways.
Much as the US is at war with one Germany and allied with another Germany, it is at war with and allied with parts of Free Trade.
This is 'politically incorrect' to say. The right wants free trade to not only be Democracy's unqualified ally for the put purpose of the people accepting it; they not only want them to be synonymous, the way that 'John' and 'Jack' can be two names for the same guy; they want people to think that Democracy requires free trade, it's built on it, withough free trade you can't have Democracy.
This is wrong, and is the propaganda of the wealthy.
Like so much in politics, things aren't black and white. 'Revolution' is wonderful in one case, as disastrous in another, depedning on your point of view. Protectionism isn't only 'bad' or 'good' nor is free trade. It's simply a policy that serves some interests and harms some others.
To discuss this we have to go to the root theory of democracy, something that's all too fogotten today by too many.
Democracy is nothing but the principle that the people have the moral right to determine, as a group, the policies that affect them, rather than having 'rulers' set the policies for their own reasons who are not required to follow the wishes of the people. There are flavors of democracy - direct, representative - but the idea is the same.
So, the fundamental idea of democracy is that there are interests who want something that is at odds with the majority, and that the benefit of democracy is to hand over the power to block those interests to the majority. Mr. Billionare wants to declare the Grand Canyon his personal property, the public says no, you can have a nice house somewhere, but the canyon is for all the public to enjoy. And they can overcome whatever influence he has to make it stick - his money, his ability to hire thugs - the government can prevail.
So, back to free trade. The real history of 'free trade' is that it has often been used by a powerful nation against a weaker one as a weapon. A nation often grows its own industries and development by using protectionism, while it makes a weaker nation weaker and dependant on it by focing them to buy their products. There are centuries of poweful nations forcing this at gunpoint - see especially England. The very term "Gunboat Diplomacy" is from the US sending a gunboat to Japan, who had chosen to close its doors to the world for centuries, to tell them that they would either open those doors and allow US products to be sold, or be killed.
An example of the hypocrisy that exists was noted by Howard Zinn:
Over a century ago, President Grant said it very clearly:
He only underestimated the speed in which it would happen - the US's power greatly accelerated after this, and by the end of WWII, the US was ready and made the basis of its foreign policy to push free trade. Nearly all the federal budget from the founding of the country until the 1910's was paid for not by the non-existent income tax, but by protectionist taxes, during which time America greatly developed our industries.
So, where does the conflict with Democracy come in?
Many places. A few examples:
International corporations, aided by international institutions including the world bank and the IMF, can create enormous pressures - sticks and carrots - for weaker nations' leaders to accept 'free trade' policies bad for the nations, by threatening the nations with economic harm if not war, and by offering a 'cut of the action' to the leaders. This is a direct attack on those nations' democratic systems, designed to represent the public interest over those powerful corporations.
Free Trade agreements have had written into them directly anti-democratic provisions; recognizing that the corporations have an interest in measures which democracy will reliably block, these agreements have provisions to subvert the elected governent's power to say 'no', with such indirect means as obligating the government to compensate any firm who loses profits to a government policy. Recognizing that some very fundamental level of protection of the public is needed, they set up a system whereby disputes are to be resolved by a private board, appointed by the private sector and unaccountable to anyone else, is given the power to rule on the issues, and the government has no appeal and must pay up to crippling sums if the board rules against them, creating a huge, hidden pressure on elected governments not to pass laws protecting the public that run the risk of that liability.
This is not the 'honest debate' of the era of the Federalist Papers, with each side making its case. This is a situation where one side - the corporate side - knows the public wouldn't agree, and so the policies are hidden and they deny any conflict with democracy - forcing opposnents to convince an apathetic public to get involved, all the while funding massive propaganda programs to build support for 'free trade', in which the anti-democratic policies are buried in the small print.
An example of 'free trade', hearkening back to the 18th 1and 19th centuries and the England-CHina Opium wars, which England foughtto force China to allows the Britihs to sell Opium in their country, is how even while President Obama this week signed an anti-tobacco bill, the US pushed free trade policies to protect its tobacco industries' right to sell tobacco into foreign countries - for example, again quoting Zinn:
It's about power, the power to profit not only within the areas the public will approve, but the ones they won't - by defeating democracy.
Whether by evasion, by cheating, by crossing borders, by corrupting policitians to insert languae they want, by the influence of their money in the election system, the result is the same, an effort under the 'branding' of "free trade", with the public conditioned to accept the phrase as good policy, to defeat the system of democracy in its ability to represent the public interest when the public interest and the interests of corporations conflict.
They will never run a candidate who says these things honestly and in a straightforward manner. They will nominate candidates who are good salesman who can sneak them in.
Such as ones with grandfatherly images and a devastating ability to toss out pithy sayings about how 'the most frightening words in the language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here ot help'' - ha, ha, until the real agenda's revealed as the sort of deregulator policies that led to the economic crash now.
The public needs to understand not to blindly trust and accept the phrase 'free trade', and to look for the wolf in sheep's clothing, and to vigilantly protect democracy.
Or to lose it - in substance, if not in skeletal form.
Consider an example of this: who is Eric Schaeffer? You don't know; I didn't know until reading about him in a book. But we all should know.
He was an example of a common situation during the Bush presidency - a pulblic servent who ran headfirst into corruption and was flattened. The EPA was highly compromised; as its first Secretary under Bush, Christine Whitman, said, there was a scientific consensus in the agency on issues, but it could not speak out, because it was overruled by a group with no scientists, the White House Council on Environmental Quality; it was tun by James Connaighton, a former lobbyist for power and electric utilities.
To quote from "Banana Republicans":
Some issues were debated - the Iraq war, to a lesser extent the Bush borrowed tax cuts - but this should have been a major public issue. Do you remember ever hearing it reported in the media? No, it was buried by the 'big' issues. It's an example of how there can be a massive yet silent corruption of the government by these economic interests.
These are the real issues that threaten our nation's well-being - the interests know they're in conflict with democracy in the lang run, and are working on how to defeat it.
Are our citizens limited in their 'defense of the nation's democracy' to following the lead of Rush for the day, or can they get a bit more informed and learn what the real threats are?
Much as the US is at war with one Germany and allied with another Germany, it is at war with and allied with parts of Free Trade.
This is 'politically incorrect' to say. The right wants free trade to not only be Democracy's unqualified ally for the put purpose of the people accepting it; they not only want them to be synonymous, the way that 'John' and 'Jack' can be two names for the same guy; they want people to think that Democracy requires free trade, it's built on it, withough free trade you can't have Democracy.
This is wrong, and is the propaganda of the wealthy.
Like so much in politics, things aren't black and white. 'Revolution' is wonderful in one case, as disastrous in another, depedning on your point of view. Protectionism isn't only 'bad' or 'good' nor is free trade. It's simply a policy that serves some interests and harms some others.
To discuss this we have to go to the root theory of democracy, something that's all too fogotten today by too many.
Democracy is nothing but the principle that the people have the moral right to determine, as a group, the policies that affect them, rather than having 'rulers' set the policies for their own reasons who are not required to follow the wishes of the people. There are flavors of democracy - direct, representative - but the idea is the same.
So, the fundamental idea of democracy is that there are interests who want something that is at odds with the majority, and that the benefit of democracy is to hand over the power to block those interests to the majority. Mr. Billionare wants to declare the Grand Canyon his personal property, the public says no, you can have a nice house somewhere, but the canyon is for all the public to enjoy. And they can overcome whatever influence he has to make it stick - his money, his ability to hire thugs - the government can prevail.
So, back to free trade. The real history of 'free trade' is that it has often been used by a powerful nation against a weaker one as a weapon. A nation often grows its own industries and development by using protectionism, while it makes a weaker nation weaker and dependant on it by focing them to buy their products. There are centuries of poweful nations forcing this at gunpoint - see especially England. The very term "Gunboat Diplomacy" is from the US sending a gunboat to Japan, who had chosen to close its doors to the world for centuries, to tell them that they would either open those doors and allow US products to be sold, or be killed.
An example of the hypocrisy that exists was noted by Howard Zinn:
Over a century ago, President Grant said it very clearly:
He only underestimated the speed in which it would happen - the US's power greatly accelerated after this, and by the end of WWII, the US was ready and made the basis of its foreign policy to push free trade. Nearly all the federal budget from the founding of the country until the 1910's was paid for not by the non-existent income tax, but by protectionist taxes, during which time America greatly developed our industries.
So, where does the conflict with Democracy come in?
Many places. A few examples:
International corporations, aided by international institutions including the world bank and the IMF, can create enormous pressures - sticks and carrots - for weaker nations' leaders to accept 'free trade' policies bad for the nations, by threatening the nations with economic harm if not war, and by offering a 'cut of the action' to the leaders. This is a direct attack on those nations' democratic systems, designed to represent the public interest over those powerful corporations.
Free Trade agreements have had written into them directly anti-democratic provisions; recognizing that the corporations have an interest in measures which democracy will reliably block, these agreements have provisions to subvert the elected governent's power to say 'no', with such indirect means as obligating the government to compensate any firm who loses profits to a government policy. Recognizing that some very fundamental level of protection of the public is needed, they set up a system whereby disputes are to be resolved by a private board, appointed by the private sector and unaccountable to anyone else, is given the power to rule on the issues, and the government has no appeal and must pay up to crippling sums if the board rules against them, creating a huge, hidden pressure on elected governments not to pass laws protecting the public that run the risk of that liability.
This is not the 'honest debate' of the era of the Federalist Papers, with each side making its case. This is a situation where one side - the corporate side - knows the public wouldn't agree, and so the policies are hidden and they deny any conflict with democracy - forcing opposnents to convince an apathetic public to get involved, all the while funding massive propaganda programs to build support for 'free trade', in which the anti-democratic policies are buried in the small print.
An example of 'free trade', hearkening back to the 18th 1and 19th centuries and the England-CHina Opium wars, which England foughtto force China to allows the Britihs to sell Opium in their country, is how even while President Obama this week signed an anti-tobacco bill, the US pushed free trade policies to protect its tobacco industries' right to sell tobacco into foreign countries - for example, again quoting Zinn:
It's about power, the power to profit not only within the areas the public will approve, but the ones they won't - by defeating democracy.
Whether by evasion, by cheating, by crossing borders, by corrupting policitians to insert languae they want, by the influence of their money in the election system, the result is the same, an effort under the 'branding' of "free trade", with the public conditioned to accept the phrase as good policy, to defeat the system of democracy in its ability to represent the public interest when the public interest and the interests of corporations conflict.
They will never run a candidate who says these things honestly and in a straightforward manner. They will nominate candidates who are good salesman who can sneak them in.
Such as ones with grandfatherly images and a devastating ability to toss out pithy sayings about how 'the most frightening words in the language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here ot help'' - ha, ha, until the real agenda's revealed as the sort of deregulator policies that led to the economic crash now.
The public needs to understand not to blindly trust and accept the phrase 'free trade', and to look for the wolf in sheep's clothing, and to vigilantly protect democracy.
Or to lose it - in substance, if not in skeletal form.
Consider an example of this: who is Eric Schaeffer? You don't know; I didn't know until reading about him in a book. But we all should know.
He was an example of a common situation during the Bush presidency - a pulblic servent who ran headfirst into corruption and was flattened. The EPA was highly compromised; as its first Secretary under Bush, Christine Whitman, said, there was a scientific consensus in the agency on issues, but it could not speak out, because it was overruled by a group with no scientists, the White House Council on Environmental Quality; it was tun by James Connaighton, a former lobbyist for power and electric utilities.
To quote from "Banana Republicans":
Some issues were debated - the Iraq war, to a lesser extent the Bush borrowed tax cuts - but this should have been a major public issue. Do you remember ever hearing it reported in the media? No, it was buried by the 'big' issues. It's an example of how there can be a massive yet silent corruption of the government by these economic interests.
These are the real issues that threaten our nation's well-being - the interests know they're in conflict with democracy in the lang run, and are working on how to defeat it.
Are our citizens limited in their 'defense of the nation's democracy' to following the lead of Rush for the day, or can they get a bit more informed and learn what the real threats are?