- Reaction score
- 5,947
- Points
- 1,260
I was tempted, first, to put this in the Grand Strategy for a Divided America thread, but, based on recceguy's cri de coeur about the state of our, Canadian, politics, I decided that it belongs in a new thread in our Canadian Politics page.
This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Economist, shocked me a bit. "How," I asked myself, "could any sane, grown up legislator oppose free(er) trade?" "It is intuitively obvious," I said to myself, "to anyone who has passed even the most basic history courses, that free trade works for everyone. Only fools oppose free trade." "Wait," I reminded myself, "about half of Canadians (and Americans) do oppose free trade." "Yes, yes, yes," I agreed with myself, "but we know that that's the half of the people who are too f'ing stupid to breathe without adult supervision, much less vote."
All that being given as truth ~ and, yes, I know some people here on Army.ca oppose free trade and I affirm that they are fools who ought to be denied the vote ... as well as going out, alone, after dark ~ then what gets into Harry Reid?
Sen Reid is appeasing (shades of Neville Chamberlain) his political base which, being left of centre, is afraid of free trade because it (the political left) always puts the possible immediate and short term costs ahead of the guaranteed* mid to long term gains and he is appealing to the spirit if American exceptionalism, which still resonates with many (most?) Americans: the notion that America is special and it need not, should not, even must not compromise with foreigners (those lesser breeds without the Law).
My guess is that Sen Reid, with his cynical stab in the back to free trade negotiations, better understands the American and Canadian political calculus than do I. He knows that his appeal to the lowest common denominator, his decision to pander to the uninformed ~ rather then to inform them, his plan to sacrifice the common good for his own, narrow, partisan political advantage, will produce good results for him, for the Democratic Party and for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The Americans will, I am 100% certain, get the government they deserve in these, 2014, mid-term elections and in 2016. And it will, I am 95% certain, be a substandard government; but it will be, in that, one that reflects the level of political discourse in America.
I'm also absolutely sure that we, Canadians, will get the government we deserve in 2015. I know, also with absolute certainty, that I will oppose some/most or all (depending on which party "wins") of the government's policies. I will get a government that thinks people like Ken Lewenza, Jerry Dias and Sid Ryan have views on e.g. free trade that deserve a full and fair hearing ~ they don't. I will get a government that believes in buying your and my vote with attractive, carefully targeted tax breaks and regional corporate welfare prgrammes. I will get a government that is timid. But I will get a government that appeals to a plurality of my fellow citizens ... and I will weep.
But we will get the government we deserve; in fact we will get the government most of us want. We will get the government we elect ... freely and fairly.
_____
* Any fair, objective reading of the historical record says that free grade always does the most good for the most people.
recceguy said:
This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Economist, shocked me a bit. "How," I asked myself, "could any sane, grown up legislator oppose free(er) trade?" "It is intuitively obvious," I said to myself, "to anyone who has passed even the most basic history courses, that free trade works for everyone. Only fools oppose free trade." "Wait," I reminded myself, "about half of Canadians (and Americans) do oppose free trade." "Yes, yes, yes," I agreed with myself, "but we know that that's the half of the people who are too f'ing stupid to breathe without adult supervision, much less vote."
All that being given as truth ~ and, yes, I know some people here on Army.ca oppose free trade and I affirm that they are fools who ought to be denied the vote ... as well as going out, alone, after dark ~ then what gets into Harry Reid?
When Harry mugged Barry
Harry Reid threatens to impoverish the world by at least $600 billion a year
Feb 8th 2014
From the print edition
IN HIS state-of-the-union address Barack Obama asked Congress to give him “fast-track” authority to negotiate trade deals. Shortly afterwards his most important ally on Capitol Hill hinted that he might block it. As Senate majority leader, Harry Reid can do just that: no bill gets a vote without his say-so. But would he really stiff Mr Obama? Much depends on the answer.
Studies suggest that proposed deals with Asia and Europe could generate global gains of $600 billion a year, with $200 billion of that going to America. And that understates the benefits, since the deals would spur competition in the market for services, which make up most of rich countries’ output but are seldom traded across borders. Opening industries like finance and transport to greater competition could bring great savings to consumers.
Mr Obama has never been an ardent free-trader, yet his second term got off to a promising start. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, a deal with large Pacific-rim economies, is close to completion; America and Japan are hammering out the rules for farm goods. European and American trade wonks continue to meet regularly, hoping to wrap up a “next-generation” trade agreement as early as next year.
To make all this happen Mr Obama needs “trade promotion authority” (usually known as “fast-track”), which would let him negotiate deals and then present them to Congress for a simple yes-or-no vote, with no chance for lawmakers to rewrite the details. Without such authority, America’s trading partners cannot take the White House seriously as a negotiator. Fast-track was last granted to George W. Bush in 2002 and expired in 2007. Since Republicans are generally pro-trade and Democrats are generally loyal to Mr Obama, most people in Washington at first assumed that Congress would give it to him without a fuss.
But with elections looming and lawmakers in a populist mood, that is far from certain. Late last year roughly half the members of the House wrote to Mr Obama declaring their opposition to fast-track; most were from his own party. In early January a bipartisan group of senators introduced a fast-track bill. Mr Obama spoke up for it in his state-of-the-union address, but only in passing and in mercantilist terms. The aim is “to protect our workers, protect our environment and open new markets to new goods stamped ‘Made in the USA’,” he said; without mentioning that cheap imports raise living standards.
Barely had he left the podium when Mr Reid mugged him. Answering questions from reporters, he reiterated his opposition to fast-track and advised its backers “not [to] push this right now”. Insiders doubt that Mr Reid would kill the bill outright. Haggling in the Senate may yield a new version with enough about labour standards and the environment to satisfy the protectionists. If so, Mr Reid will probably allow a vote, and the bill should pass. The White House remains publicly optimistic.
Yet damage is already being done. Michael Froman, Mr Obama’s trade representative, says negotiations have not been affected by the politicking in Washington. However, even if Mr Reid’s rebellion was partly for show (his seat is at risk in 2016), it still worries America’s trade partners. Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister, may be reluctant to offend voters at home for the sake of a trade deal that America’s legislators might promptly torpedo. Similarly, the French, who have been a constant pain in talks between America and Europe, could argue that since America’s leaders seem determined to attach conditions to a fast-track bill, France’s demands for carve-outs deserve consideration, too.
At home meanwhile, Democratic opposition could harden. Some lawmakers may see an opportunity to put daylight between themselves and their Republican foes ahead of November’s elections. With corporate profits looking healthy and wages still stagnant almost five years into the recovery, some may be tempted to portray Republican backing for free trade as support for fat-cat corporations.
Mr Reid’s surprise rebuke suggests that Mr Obama needs to communicate better with his allies. And if he wishes to prevent two of the most promising trade deals in a decade from unravelling, he will need to make a far more full-throated case for the benefits of free exchange.
Sen Reid is appeasing (shades of Neville Chamberlain) his political base which, being left of centre, is afraid of free trade because it (the political left) always puts the possible immediate and short term costs ahead of the guaranteed* mid to long term gains and he is appealing to the spirit if American exceptionalism, which still resonates with many (most?) Americans: the notion that America is special and it need not, should not, even must not compromise with foreigners (those lesser breeds without the Law).
My guess is that Sen Reid, with his cynical stab in the back to free trade negotiations, better understands the American and Canadian political calculus than do I. He knows that his appeal to the lowest common denominator, his decision to pander to the uninformed ~ rather then to inform them, his plan to sacrifice the common good for his own, narrow, partisan political advantage, will produce good results for him, for the Democratic Party and for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The Americans will, I am 100% certain, get the government they deserve in these, 2014, mid-term elections and in 2016. And it will, I am 95% certain, be a substandard government; but it will be, in that, one that reflects the level of political discourse in America.
I'm also absolutely sure that we, Canadians, will get the government we deserve in 2015. I know, also with absolute certainty, that I will oppose some/most or all (depending on which party "wins") of the government's policies. I will get a government that thinks people like Ken Lewenza, Jerry Dias and Sid Ryan have views on e.g. free trade that deserve a full and fair hearing ~ they don't. I will get a government that believes in buying your and my vote with attractive, carefully targeted tax breaks and regional corporate welfare prgrammes. I will get a government that is timid. But I will get a government that appeals to a plurality of my fellow citizens ... and I will weep.
But we will get the government we deserve; in fact we will get the government most of us want. We will get the government we elect ... freely and fairly.
_____
* Any fair, objective reading of the historical record says that free grade always does the most good for the most people.
) would elect "good government, and they won't like it!" 
