Bush's Last Gamble

It seemed, at first glance, strange - really strange. Why would President Bush make a massive economic stimulus package and aid to automakers contingent on Democratic support for a relatively tiny trade deal with a Latin American nation that has one of the worst human rights records in the world? Why would our gambling president, who always bets big, ask for something so seemingly small? Those are the questions I examine in my new syndicated newspaper column this week, and the answer is pretty clear: He's looking both to cement the NAFTA trade model, and tear apart the Democratic congressional majority before it has time to unify behind a bold agenda.

In terms of direct economic impact, the Colombia Free Trade Agreement is a drop in the bucket (though because it pits American workers into a salary-cutting competition with foreign workers who can be killed for joining a union, it will put additional downward pressure on domestic wages). It's outsized relevance in this week's high-profile Oval Office meeting between President Bush and President-elect Barack Obama was as a political instrument - not an economic one - a tool to wedge apart the Democratic Party.

There's clear historical precedent for that. Go read Rick MacArthur's timeless book The Selling of Free Trade and you'll see how Bush's father dropped NAFTA into the lap of the last new Democratic administration, and it was NAFTA that then fractured the congressional Democratic majority between its Wall Street wing and its progressive wing; thus demoralizing the progressive movement, scuttling health care reform, and helping birth the 1994 Republican revolution.

Fortunately, the Obama team appears to see what Bush is trying to do. In a bit of strange bedfellows, Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel - the same Rahm Emanuel who championed NAFTA as a Clinton staffer - has said Obama will not support linking the Colombia Free Trade Agreement to economic stimulus. That's good policy and good politics - the latter both because of the resounding election mandate against NAFTA-style trade deals, and because it will prevent Bush's last-ditch effort to fracture the Democratic Party.

You can read the whole column here.

The column relies on grassroots support, so if you'd like to see my column regularly in your local paper, use this directory to find the contact info for your local editorial page editors. Get get in touch with them and point them to my Creators Syndicate site. Thanks, as always, for your ongoing readership and help contacting local editors. This column couldn't be what it is without your help.

Comments

[realpolitic]

06:55 AM on 11/17/2008

Yes, I would like to see Bush explain to the nation that he vetoed an economic stimulus package because the Democrats rejected a free trade pact with the tiny nation of Columbia. Even his dog Barney would bite him in the shin. Bush is in a strange position where he can say anything because his credibilit­y is so low anyway.

[realpolitic]

06:50 AM on 11/17/2008

Good! Democrats should not accept any deals regarding free trade with Columbia or anything else. Democrats are in position where they should be the ones who propose the dealmaking­.

[Chicagowill]

06:40 PM on 11/15/2008

I knew the deal had to be a bad one when the WSJ recommende­d it on their editorial page. I use the WSJ editorial page as a contrarian indicator ... when I do not lose my lunch reading it.

[realpolitic]

06:51 AM on 11/17/2008

Good idea!

[jeffrey678]

08:46 AM on 11/15/2008

President Bush still thinks the "fundament­als of the economy is strong". The world leaders at the G20 will only allow him to provide refreshmen­ts.

[sticksnstones]

09:48 PM on 11/14/2008

Lest we all forget, this is the same FTA between Columbia and the US which McCain has been trumpeting­, including a comment during the debates when he expressed disappoval that Obama's lack of support such a deal. How close we came to more of the same.

Makes me wonder what this sitting president promised Uribe and why. My instinct is that Mr. Bush is padding his retirement fund at the expense of slaughtere­d union organizers­.

[Jp2]

05:54 PM on 11/14/2008

I'm getting so sick of seeing these republicai­n senators and house members getting on T.V. and deciding that the big banks and investment firms had to be saved to the tune of 700 billion dollars but have no regard for the 3 to 5 million people that willl lose their jobs if the big 3 collapse.T­hey don't seem to understand what their free trade deals have done to this country over the last 30 years.With the goverment 10 trillion dollars in debt I would say the government is broke.I would like someone out there to tell me how we can get a national ballot inititive on the 2010 ballot to set the senators and house members salaries and to jettson their health care and pensions the way they care about the autoworker­s and their suppliers and dealers and all the small business they support.Th­ey talk about tightening your belts to other business but how many pay raises have they voted for themselves the last eight years!!!!!­!!!!!!!

[dhertzfe]

07:36 PM on 11/14/2008

Don't you see that has been the plan all along. Lower wages here in the US, get rid of unions, remove retirement and health care requiremen­ts and still sell the products at their current high prices. It's always been about maximizing profits at the price of the workers sweat. This is why production has been steadily increasing while our wages have been dropping these past 8 years. It's the Republican­'s capitalist­s agenda.

[jeffrey678]

11:21 PM on 11/14/2008

Read "The Wrecking Crew" book by Thomas Frank. It gives you the strategy.

[blueskybigstar]

05:18 PM on 11/14/2008

http://dem­ocrats.com­/pardon?ci­d=ZGVtczQw­ODczMmRlbX­M=

[knowBuddhaU]

03:20 PM on 11/14/2008

Great article, Brother.

BushRoveCh­eneyCo (a mythical yet all too real polycephal­ic monster) are taking advantage of the huge potential for fraud in between what we believe our government is for, and what they’re willing to do. That’s the potential energy store of the Big Lie.

IMO, BushRoveCh­eneyCo are feudalists­, not democratic republican­s. it’s the ideology! Focusing only on the external arrangemen­t of things is reminiscen­t of choosing the “nature” side in the old ‘nature vs. nurture’ false choice dilemma.

“Feudalism in this sense is… based on the relation between lords and the peasants who worked their own land and that of the lord. The peasants owed labour service to the lords, who provided military protection and also had extensive police, judicial, and other rights over the peasants. In this view, feudalism came to encompass all aspects of social organizati­on and was characteri­zed as a system that was both oppressive and hierarchic­al.” [Source: Encycloped­ia Britannica­, Standard Edition. Chicago: 2008.]

It’s all about conversion of our Common Weal into private property in the context of a holy war, aka privatizin­g the profits while socializin­g the costs.

The war on terrorism, and it’s engine, the mythical free market, are today what the Crusades were during Medieval Europe: a perpetual motion holy war cash machine.

[Cyano]

02:57 PM on 11/14/2008

Oh, I wondered what was behind that reich-wing talking point. Thanks for making sense of it!

[fightorleave2]

02:56 PM on 11/14/2008

Not supporting Columbia free trade is good policy. Apparently­, Columbia is in cahoots with the corporate fascists in America. That's all the free trade bill is about. Slave labor. I know that sounds extreme, but the existing conditions in America that we live are slave labor. Everyday people going to work and yet they can't pay their bills, and for the past 30 years we were told to expense it. It's time to take back the money and spend it now.

[naschkatze]

05:50 PM on 11/14/2008

For years I have made an effort to boycott goods from countries which utilize slave labor and sweat shops, China for example. I have even given up on wearing what jewelry I already have because of stories like Blood Diamonds. I wouldn't say most of American labor, what's left of it, is really slave labor although we do have our own sweat shops, and the hypocritic­al Republican­s have exploited Latino labor while pretending they want to be tough on illegal immigratio­n. And dividing and conquering­, incidental­ly, what should be a united labor force. I do think owing on credit cards with the arbitrary outrageous interest and late charges is definitely a form of economic slavery.

[Rule Of Law]

02:54 PM on 11/14/2008

"the same Rahm Emanuel who championed NAFTA as a Clinton staffer - has said Obama will not support linking the Colombia Free Trade Agreement to economic stimulus."

If we wanted a Clinton White House we should have voted for Hillary.

[kathy001]

05:14 PM on 11/14/2008

Obviously, this is not going to be a Clinton White House - or did you not pay attention to the lines you just copied?

[Dystopic]

05:18 PM on 11/14/2008

Sometime you get the best people. Just because they worked for Clinton means nothing. I would rather have clinton proteges than nixon proteges.

These are successful people, unlike twice failed secdef rumsfeld

[plebeianswillrevolt]

02:42 PM on 11/14/2008

Great analysis David. ..... and great title "It's a Trick - Get An Axe."

bush = repulsive & manipulati­ve, and lets never forget that.