One Problem With Opinion Shapers

They Warp and Mislead Themselves as Much as They Confuse Everyone Else

In his latest NYT column, the normally astute Thomas Edsall is confusing an already tangled set of issues with his focus on "trade" and his misuse of that term.

It's extremely important to recognize that VERY few people (rich or poor, from red states or blues states) object to trade when it means exporting "our" goods and services. This has simply never been the case. US policy, going back even to before there was a US (which means before there was an Alexander Hamilton), has always been about promoting exports and blocking (to the extent possible) many forms of imports.

But the fake "trade" deals (NAFTA, TPP, etc) are only marginally about reducing barriers to US exports. As Edsall points out, the "Blue" areas are already doing very well.

The situation with "imports" is where everyone's thinking gets more discombobulated. The US is still highly protectionist in many areas (one of the privileges of imperial firepower). But these so-called (actually fake) "trade" deals are more concerned with a special kind of "import" which is more like an internal corporate transfer of goods (or their components) between different locations of one business that "coincidentally happen" to be on different sides of the US borders (or on different sides of the Pacific Ocean).

Thus these "trade" deals are really about facilitating the export of JOBS and PRODUCTION. The majority of people who live in "Blue States" are only temporarily insulated from the corrosive effects this will eventually have on their well being, incomes, and security. And their major benefit from these high powered scams is the temporarily "low everyday prices" made possible by the beggaring of their relatives in "Red States" and the grinding exploitation of workers (often children or prisoners) on the wrong side of the borders/oceans.

We all need to be more careful about our terminology. What we (too often) call "trade" deals are really part of a long term, well-financed, highly propagandized program to reduce the bargaining power of US workers and to dilute the political power of US voters. 

Columnists, politicians, and corporate mouthpieces who (through their mischaracterizations) collaborate with the predatory global 0.1% against the interest of the US population should be called out - or educated.

Are Democrats Bad for the Country?

Being the lesser of two evils can never earn whole hearted support from honest people.

Stanley and Anna Greenberg ask if Obama was "Bad for Democrats". Their column points to how the party lost seats in the off-year elections and failed to win a majority large enough to offset the vagaries of the Electoral College in the context of strategic FBI and Russian meddling.

The Greenbergs never acknowledge structures of white supremacy and attitudes of racism that certainly "colored" every interpretation of Obama's actions and demeanor. This obviously wore heavily on the man, and enabled his (our) enemies to largely keep him in check.

But the Greenbergs' most deleterious omission was any direct reference to the negative power of concentrated wealth. FDR was the only modern presidential politician who could call out "the malefactors of great wealth" and publicly mock them, defy them, attack them, and "welcome their hate". But FDR, of course, was not only "white", he was a born and bred member of the opulent classes.

Obama played a careful game in the constraints of a shattered and still fragile economy. Yes, he "failed" to venture into the risky territory of naked class warfare. That means he was more calculating than bold. But the story of ObamaCare puts all that into its correct perspective.

The Affordable Care Act was barely passed despite a Democratic Congressional majority. Not a single Republican offered any support despite the fact that the bill's provisions had been largely cooked up in Conservative and Republican circles. And his reward? A devastating setback in the next off-year election.

Obama may have been bad for Democrats. But the Democrats (as currently constituted with their dependence on corporate$) are bad for themselves - and bad for the country. Being the lesser of two evils can never earn wholehearted support from honest people.