Beware the "Lou Dobbs" Democrats, says Jacob Weisberg at Slate.
"Most of those who reclaimed Republican seats ran hard against free trade, globalization, and any sort of moderate immigration policy. That these Democrats won makes it likely that others will take up their reactionary call. Some of the newcomers may even be foolish enough to try to govern on the basis of their misguided theory. ... The leading economic nationalist today is probably Lou Dobbs, who on nights other than Election Night natters on against free trade, outsourcing, globalization, and immigration on CNN."
Commentary
I don't actually believe Lou Dobb's theory but there is something disturbing about the idea that a candidate shouldn't actually take his campaign platform seriously. Rahm Emmanuel counseled Democrats to say nothing on Iraq. Now that they have won, others are counseling them to run up the Jolly Roger. Run as one thing, govern as another. Why should people who ran as Lou Dobbs Democrats not get to push the platform they were elected on? It seems like unfair labeling, somehow.
posted by wretchardthecat at 11/08/2006 06:52:00 PM
6 Comments:
Back in the "Battle of Seattle" World Trade Organization Riots, about this time of the year in 1999, the long-haired smellies sure were against free trade, outsourcing, and globalization but they could not be considered to be "reactionary" Lou Dobbs followers by any stretch.
HK Vol has a very interesting point. If the Democrats actually try to push through protectionist trade laws, things could get really interesting.
The Weisberg article [or else another I read in the FT this morning] brought up Pelosi's fierce record on Chinese HR violations and her other PRC fixations. [per HK Vol]
The Doha Follow-Up appears doomed, and fast-track will also disappear.
On another side of the coin, the newly elected Dems are so anti-immigrant that the Bush/Pelosi/McCain Wall Street Journal amnesty bill might still have problems in the House.
Oh, and add that she and her ilk want to raise tariffs and trade barriers with China.
Just from January to October the trade deficit with China was $113.6 billion, up 11 billion dollars from the same window of time last year. That's buying a lot of ships and subs for them at a time when we are shrinking our navy. How much longer do we have to shovel money into the maw of our mid-21st century hot war enemy.
woman catholic:
"our mid-21st century hot war enemy"
Bingo.
The Jihadis are the warm up act for the main event of the 21st century. Indeed, Chinese elites believe themselves already at war with the U.S. -- economically, technologically, ideologically, diplomatically and politicially.
But given the difficulties we appear to be having in the preliminary match, there may be no need for a hot war for China to get what it wants.
A few demonstrations of weakness by the U.S. in Asia and Korea, Japan, Taiwan and others will make their own accommodation with what is now becoming their largest market.
hk vol:
That's the thing about anti-Americanism -- it carries no consequences.
Think MEPs in Brussels or editors of Europe's politically-compromised newspapers will hector Beijing day in and day out when the consequence is forfeiture of a commercial contract worth thousands of desperately needed jobs?
As with my previous comment regarding the prospect of east Asia remaining in the 'western' or democratic camp -- follow the money.
Post a Comment
<< Home