Nation:  What the Democrats Must Learn From Brexit About Free-Trade Deals

[villager]

Sanders and Clinton are right to oppose the TPP, and the Democratic Party should do the same.

By John Nichols


<snip>

 The Leave campaigners in the UK succeeded because there are millions of working-class voters—many of them in the left-leaning “Labour heartlands” of northern England—who know that globalization has not worked for them. Well, there are millions of Americans in battleground states such as Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina who know that globalization has not worked for them.

Clinton got it right Sunday when she told the US Conference of Mayors, “Just as we have seen there are many frustrated people in Britain, we know there are frustrated people here at home, too.”

While a substantial portion of British voters blamed the European Union for the misery of austerity and deindustrialization, a substantial number of American voters blame the misery of austerity and deindustrialization on free-trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement, permanent normalization of trade relations with China, and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. There is broad agreement with the assessment of groups such as Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch and the Citizen Trade Campaign, which have explained that corporate-friendly free-trade deals have harmed workers, farmers, small-business owners, communities, and the environment. This is one of the reasons TPP-critic Bernie Sanders ran so well in the Democratic primaries, and Clinton (who once praised the TPP) now says she is opposed to the agreement.

The shared anti-TPP stance of the two Democratic contenders led to speculation that the Democratic platform, as drafted by a 15-member committee made up of Clinton backers, Sanders backers,and others, might formally line up the party in opposition to the agreement.

When the platform-drafting committee took up the issue in St. Louis last week, Congressman Keith Ellison, the Minnesota Democrat who serves as a cochair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, proposed to add language rejecting the trade deal. But the proposal was defeated, after Clinton-allied drafting committee members said they did not want to go on record against a deal that has been backed by President Obama.

Ellison, who was one of Obama’s first backers when he ran for the presidency in 2008, says, “I am disappointed that my amendment to take a strong stand against the Trans-Pacific Partnership—a position shared by both Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders—was not included.” The congressman argues that it is vital to take a strong stand against the TPP, and he is encouraging the full platform committee to adopt his anti-TPP amendment when it meets in July.

<snip>

https://www.thenation.com/article/what-the-democrats-must-learn-about-free-trade-deals-from-brexit/

[billhicks76]

1. Lee Atwater Said

The republicans are moving so far to the right that the democrats will have no choice but to come along. How messed up is that?

[Motown_Johnny]

2. .

[SunSeeker]

18. That's from 2012, and she was praising the fair trade & worker protection TPP goals.

She was not talking about the actual TPP terms that were hammered out well after she left the State Department. The headline on that video is misleading. As you know, after she reviewed the actual terms that were released some months ago, she determined they failed to meet those goals and she stated her opposition to the TPP as it is now written.

But you knew that, Motown_Johnny. And yet you continue to relitigate the Dem primary with the same bogus anti-Hillary propaganda. It really is time to move on.

[Motown_Johnny]

19. It isn't about the primary.

It is about her.

[SunSeeker]

20. It's anti-Hillary propaganda. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

21. Then why did the administrators reinstate the post

after I appealed it being hidden?

Anti Hillary propaganda is against the new no bashing (Hillary) rule and my post doesn't break that rule (even though there are enough zealots here to have it hidden).

It is simply her words offered without comment. Maybe you should.look up that word "propaganda". I don't think it means what you think it means. Maybe you should stop using it.



Wrongly accusing me of posting propaganda comes very close to a personal attack but I will let.it slide. Some of us are big enough to handle a little criticism.

[SunSeeker]

35. Ask the Admins why it was reinstated.

And yes, it is propaganda, basically a Trump talking point, as I explain to merrily:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=162358

[Motown_Johnny]

36. The message from the administrators was that it did not break the rules.

I think you better research the word."propaganda". Just because you don't like something doesn't make it wrong.

That post is the truth, even if you can't see it.

[SunSeeker]

39. The title of the video is a lie, as I note above.

It is meant to convey the false idea that Hillary supports the TPP in its current form. That makes it propaganda.

Why did you post it? What point were you trying to make?

[Motown_Johnny]

41. Her exact words can't be a lie. She said it.

Please try to deal with reality as it exists, not how you wish it to be.

[SunSeeker]

42. The title is not "her exact words." Why did you post the video?

She was not talking about the TPP terms that are now at issue that Congress is considering. She has explicitly stated she opposes those terms. What was the point of posting that snippet with that misleading title? It is a 2012 snippet in which she indicates her approval of the trade agreement goals of worker and environmental protection.

You posted this misleadingly, with no comment, suggesting it is Hillary talking about the TPP terms that are the subject of the OP. Why did you do that?

Why can't you answer that question?

[merrily]

27. A 45 second video of Hillary speaking is anti-Hillary propaganda?

I guess we've gone through the looking glass.

[Motown_Johnny]

33. Reality is no longer acceptable.

If it doesn't fit the narrative it doesn't exist.

[SunSeeker]

34. The title of the video is a lie, as I note above.

The whole thing is presented as if Hillary supports the TPP terms that have been put together after she left the State Department, which she explicitly said she does not support. It is basically a Trump talking point. We should not be pushing Trump lies on DU.

Through the looking glass indeed.

[Motown_Johnny]

37. No. It is.a.quote. n/t

[SunSeeker]

38. No, the title of the video is a lie. Hillary does not support the TPP.

Stating that Hillary supports the TPP is Trump propaganda. Posting that video with that title and no clarification that it is from 2012 and that she is discussing her support for the worker protection goals of TPP as she knew it back then would make it a more honest post. As it is presented, it is Trumpian propaganda.

[Motown_Johnny]

40. Her exact quote is...

"This TPP sets the Gold Standard in Trade Agreements".


I am not stating that she supports TPP. You are not being truthful when you claim that I am. I did nothing more than post a video with her speaking on the subject.


I will now post a video that explains how she behaved in 2008 concerning NAFTA. I suggest you look for similarities.

[SunSeeker]

43. The "this TPP" she was talking about were the TPP goals set out back in 2012.

The video you posted is titled "Hillary Clinton Praises TPP As 'Gold Standard In Free Trade Agreements.'” Those are not Hillary's "exact words." Hillary does not support the current terms of the TPP. Her "gold standard" statement was taken out of context from her discussion of the GOALS of the TPP back then. The TPP terms had not been set in 2012 when she made these statements, so she could not have been talking about them. Yet you posted the video in a thread about the current TPP terms. It is blatantly misleading and supports Trumps bullshit propaganda that Hillary supports the TPP and he is the only one who can get us a good trade deal.

You refuse to state why you posted this video. You refuse to state what point you were trying to make by posting that 2012 video.

Now that you have lost the argument and shown you cannot defend the posting of this video, you want to change the subject. I suggest you look for similarities with your other posts.

[Motown_Johnny]

44. I posted the video to show her record on trade.

She has been pro free trade for decades. Only during the primary battle(s) has she made statements that are not a strongly pro free trade.


I just want that reality to be known.

My argument was not lost because I was not arguing. Hillary said what she said. That is the reality and I was simply pointing it out.

[SunSeeker]

45. No, you falsely presented her as being pro-TPP, by posting a video with a false headline.

You posted it without comment. It appears you were trying to contradict the OP that stated both Sanders and Hillary oppose the TPP.

The video itself only has a snippet of her stating that the original TPP goals were the "gold standard" for trade agreements, namely worker and environment protection. It does not present her "record" on trade agreements or "free trade."

Presenting a false picture of Hillary's position on TPP is what Trump is doing with a fury right now, since the only thing that is gaining traction with certain voters right now is his isolationist trade rhetoric (which is in complete contradiction to his outsourcing all of his Trump brand clothing products). DUers should not be helping him along with this.

[Motown_Johnny]

46. The headline is not false

It is a.fair characterization of her comments in the clip.

Deal with it.

If that post.deserved to be hidden it still would.be. you are simply wrong.

[SunSeeker]

47. The video's headline is false. It implies she supports the TPP. She does not. nt

Last edited Mon Jul 4, 2016, 06:18 AM - Edit history (2)

[Motown_Johnny]

48. Her statement was made in the present tense without qualification.

It is a simple declarative.


Hillary was praising TPP as the gold standard in free trade when she made those comments. This is not an arguable point.


Your misrepresenting the time frame does not make the title false. Only your statements here are false.



This is becoming tiresome. I post facts and you respond with fantasy.


How about you go falsely accuse someone else of posting propaganda for a while? Here is a nice new thread with lots of things on it far worse than anything I posted here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512234015


Have fun!

[SunSeeker]

49. It was indeed stated in the present tense, IN 2012. BEFORE the terms we now have were set.

That is a fact. My first post to you in this subthread stated those facts. She could not have been talking about the current TPP terms --- they did not exist. She opposes those terms. That is a fact as well. You keep trying to imply she supports the TPP terms. That is simply incorrect. It is not me who is injecting fantasy in this discussion.

[LS_Editor]

3. Hillary does not oppose TPP.

She helped put it together.

[Cryptoad]

7. plz

While many viewers may have been sympathetic to Cooper’s allegation of opportunism, there is no reason to doubt Clinton’s account of her position on trade. It would be foolish to think that because she had once supported the TPP in principle, she should remain committed to it unconditionally. Furthermore, Clinton’s longer record shows an increasing reluctance to support the free trade agenda that characterized her husband’s administration twenty years ago. While she has supported many past free trade agreements, she voted against the Central American Free Trade Area (CAFTA) in 2005, while she was a senator. In 2007, reflecting on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), she offered mixed support, explaining, “what we have learned is that we have to drive a tougher bargain.” By 2008, she had concluded that NAFTA “had not lived up to its promises.” Later that year, she broke with members of her own campaign team — and her husband — over a free trade agreement with Colombia.

In more recent years, Clinton’s positions on trade have partly reflected the needs of the Obama Administration in which she served as Secretary of State. But they also show a commendable willingness to scrutinize the specifics. Not all trade deals are created equal, and what matters are the details. Support for one deal should not automatically translate into support for another — but explaining how the details matter, and why, is hard to do in a campaign slogan or a quick response in a televised debate.

Cooper is just the latest in a line of commentators who have criticized Clinton for a supposed flip-flop on the TPP. Clinton’s critics are quick to point out that, as Secretary of State, she was involved in the early phase of negotiations that would lead to the TPP. In that capacity, she gave many speeches on behalf of the deal, which are now being trucked out as evidence of her inconsistency. It’s true that Clinton supported the TPP in the “ideas phase,” when she hoped that it could be concluded in line with her priorities for a broader reconfiguration of American foreign policy — the “pivot to Asia” that was one of the hallmarks of her leadership at the State Department. But to anyone who has studied Clinton’s record on this matter, her current opposition to the TPP comes as neither surprising nor sudden.

In fact, since leaving her position as Secretary of State, she has been offering frequent, subtle warnings that she would not unconditionally support the TPP. In public speeches and in her memoir Hard Choices, Clinton praised the agreement in principle, but always with some reservations. As delicately as she could, given the decorum demanded of someone who was a former member of the sitting administration, she signaled to the Obama White House that her support for the TPP was contingent on the final deal meeting her requirements for trade in the twenty-first century. Foremost among these requirements are that new trade deals should help American workers and not hurt national security.

It was entirely appropriate for Clinton to withhold judgment on the TPP until the final deal was concluded, and she was under no obligation to endorse any final deal simply because she had once hoped for a good one. Clinton’s opposition to the TPP is not a flip-flop but a perfectly reasonable stance. In fact, many more Americans may now follow Clinton in concluding, once they see the final details of the TPP, that while they may not be against trade in general, they are certainly against this deal in particular.

The focus on Clinton’s alleged reversal is a dodge to deflect our attention from what really matters, which are the problems with the TPP. The American public has yet to see the final negotiated draft, in spite of insistent calls for more transparency from the Obama administration. But nothing reported so far following the conclusion of the negotiations suggests that critics have been wrong to oppose this deal as a corporate grab-bag masquerading under the banner of “free trade.”

With more time, Clinton could have been even stronger in confronting Cooper’s blunt questions in last night’s debate. She could have gone through her evolving views on trade — not over the last month or year, but over the last decade. She could have noted her disappointment with NAFTA, and her insistence on higher standards for any new trade agreements. She could have explained further how the TPP that was concluded is not what the TPP should have been.

She could have said what John Maynard Keynes famously said when a critic accused him of inconsistency: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” For the real significance of Clinton’s opposition to the TPP is not what it suggests about Clinton. It’s what it suggests about the TPP.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-singh-grewal/why-hillary-clinton-is-ri_b_8295420.html

[LS_Editor]

10. If Obama doesn't get it through Congress then Hillary will. Mark my words.

You know, if she wins.

[Cryptoad]

11. No shortage of seers around these here parts........

sounds like u don't want her win?

[LS_Editor]

15. I'm not arrogant enough to believe Americans aren't stupid enough to elect Trump.

And you shouldn't be, either.

[merrily]

28. Poppy did not get NAFTA through Congress.

[elleng]

4. 13 Democratic senators voted to fast-track tpp:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153527531301852&set=gm.1743562139248772&type=3

This includes Time Kaine, among those on VP lists.

[tirebiter]

5. So, Brexit is a good thing?

My 401k says you are wrong if you think that. Nigel Farge has walked back all the good things he claimed would be resultant. Scotland would disagree as would Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, the list goes on. This was about too many Poles living next door. Industry will have to relocate to EU nations to avoid tariffs. That Cameron and the Conservatives went the route of austerity is as much to blame. That goes back to the Brit electorate making a series of stupid decisions. No reason we should follow the example of a nation we separated from.

[BlueMTexpat]

12. Only those who

really have no clue what they are talking about believe that Brexit is a good thing.

[Android3.14]

6. "Sanders and Clinton are right to oppose the TPP"?

Who are you trying to fool, Mr. Nichols?

[Cryptoad]

8. the uninformed?

[Android3.14]

16. Or the willfully ignorant.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. Globalization is not the problem. Low wages, shitty jobs, & wealth inequality are the problems

A lot (not all or necessarily most of course but a lot) of the people railing, tweeting, and posting against the dreaded "globalization" are doing so on the WORLD WIDE Web with their MADE IN CHINA phones built from AFRICAN metals using USA engineering and apps developed in part in EUROPE. And that is only one example of many. That's GLOBALIZATION. It's not a problem.

Even "exporting" jobs is not a problem. Nobody here wants to be paid to recycle the materials in their precious phones that they replace every year or two while we wait for robots to get good enough to do it.

Even "exporting" manufacturing jobs is not problem. The sooner developing countries develop a robust middle class, the sooner there will be democracy in places like China and the sooner war becomes unimaginable to those people around the world.

The problem is low wages here. Raise the minimum wage. Increase education so that people can get better jobs. Invest in innovative NON_REPUBLICAN industries like solar power like Europe is investing in. Invest in high speed rail. Invest in elder care. Invest in replacing crumbling infrastructure.

Look to what the Democratic Governor is doing in California and contrast it with Republican Kansas.

Another part of the problem is wealth inequality. Close off-shore tax loopholes. If it means higher taxes for the 10% / 1%, go for it. Make sure they pay for the education and infrastructure that they suck dry.

[BlueMTexpat]

13. Thanks for lots of good

suggestions. People are trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater because they can't recognize the difference.

[Sentath]

14. Gosh darn it, How do I Rec a post?

(that was a joke)

But I do agree with you.

[SunSeeker]

17. Sounds good to me.

Those are pretty much Hillary's positions as well.

[seabeckind]

22. Corporate control of the globalization is the problem

because their obsession with profits will lead to

Low wages, shitty jobs, & wealth inequality

Who decides where phones are manufactured? Who decides where keyboards are manufactured.

To deny that corporations make those decision based on profit motives is folly.

To deny that there is an oligopoly is living in a dream world.

Blaming it on a captive customer is not realizing that there is a captivity.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

23. As I said (in title), wealth inequality is one of the roots. You agree when you ref "oligopoly". nt

[seabeckind]

24. No, I don't agree.

Corporate control is the root. It is a mindless beast that basically functions as a mob rule, ie, no individual has personal accountability for the decisions of the beast.

Everything else that we are experiencing today are branches. Including oligopolies.

Kill the root and the branches die.

Oligopolies and wealth inequality are 2 very different things. You can have one without the other. Eg, a tightly regulated monopoly, like a water utility, does not imply wealth inequality, and vice versa.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

25. An un-wealthy oligopoly is toothless. . . nt

[seabeckind]

26. False equivalency.

You keep trying to drive a square peg into the round hole.

In the wrong room.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

30. Non-equivalency. . . nt

[merrily]

29. +1 Trying to maximize profits for stockholders is a legal corporate duty.

It also extends beyond corporations to "big business" in general, regardless of which legal form is used.

[seabeckind]

31. Yes it is.

I believe it's something that needs to be changed. That when an action in pursuit of an increase in profits is harmful, then the duty to society must outweigh the duty to the shareholder.

For example, the airbag issue has been known for quite a few years. During that period auto manufacturers continued to use those products. In fact, some have most likely been negligent in their lack of notification to previous customers.

So not only did the corporation fail society in general, they even failed their own customers.

And I definitely don't want to get into banking.

[merrily]

32. I know what you are saying, but both CAN exist with proper regulation.

You can leave directors and officers with a duty to make money for stockholders, BUT, government has to legislate and regulate. That it does not do that for the benefit of most of us is a serious issue, from corporate welfare, to tax laws, to regulators being in bed with the industries they are supposed to regulate, etc.