Fareed Zakaria's "Expertise" and the Elite's Insulting Dishonesty

Fareed Zakaria, as his Newsweek biography is happy to tell you, is a Very Important Person looked to as an "expert" on international issues. Somehow, he retains this billing despite advocating for the worst foreign policy disaster in a generation, hiding his dual role as simultaneous "journalist" and Bush administration adviser, insisting that the Iraq War is "over," and publishing fact-free columns like this week's on international trade.

Zakaria is alarmed that presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are actually giving voice to the concerns of the vast majority of Americans who polls show are unhappy with our current lobbyist-written trade policies -- policies that pundits like him have jammed down the country's throat. Really, Zakaria says, how dare presidential candidates have the nerve to actually represent the people and not the Punditburo.

This is disdain for the majority is standard fare for a magazine bloviator typing out columns from the comfortable confines of a Manhattan office. But what's striking is Zakaria's attempt to wrap elitism in altruism.

To review: Our trade policy includes no labor, environmental or human rights protections, but includes restrictive protections for corporate profits -- patent protections that keep drug prices high in the developing world, intellectual property protections that hurt innovation in the developing world, etc. Our trade policy also includes massive agricultural subsidies rigged to reward multinational corporate agribusiness over family farmers both here and abroad. None of this is news -- and you might think such basic facts would be well known to "experts" like Zakaria.

But think again. In his column, he cites a mythical "struggling farmer" in the developing world who he says believes "access to world markets is far more important than foreign aid or U.N. programs." Apparently, Zakaria hasn't noticed that many of those farmers that he supposedly cares so much about are right now in the process of revolting against the final implementation of NAFTA and the Peru Free Trade Agreement. He apparently also never saw the acclaimed documentary "Life and Debt" which charts how developing-world farmers are thrown into poverty when their markets are opened up to taxpayer-subsidized agribusiness -- and how that poverty then breeds insurrections that requires violent military interventions to crush. Then again, that's how elitists like Zakaria like their policies implemented -- they believe "freedom" in the Mideast should be ushered in at gunpoint, and "free" trade brought about at the tip of a bayonet. Ah, the joys of neoconservative "freedom."

Zakaria goes on to lament that in pushing for labor and environmental standards, Democratic presidential candidates "are pandering to the worst instincts of Americans, encouraging a form of xenophobia and chauvinism and validating the utterly self-defeating idea of protectionism." He says this hurts America's image because "what is said in Ohio is heard in Ghana and Bangladesh and Colombia as well." Yet, Newsweek's "expert" apparently didn't have 5 minutes to actually research the topic at hand. Because had he spent that small amount of time actually "reporting" (I know, an outdated endeavor for today's pundits), he would have quickly found this recent worldwide public opinion study from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs showing majorities all over the globe "think trade harms the environment and threatens jobs and want to mitigate these effects with environmental and labor standards." Yet according to Zakaria, presidential candidates expressing those exact feelings run the risk of engendering an anti-American "backlash." In truth, the only "backlash" they are creating is one from elitists like Newsweek's economic "expert."

The rest of the column whines on much like this, with Zakaria firing out most of the tired fallacies of the right -- my favorite of which is the one where he channels John McCain -- the man who recently said "NAFTA has created jobs, and I think it's been good for our economy, I think it's been good for the Canadian economy, and I think it's been good for the Mexican economy." Zakaria one-ups McCain, saying "NAFTA has been pivotal in transforming Mexico into a stable democracy with a growing economy." Yes, folks -- forget about the Mexican election that just took place under a shroud of controversy, forget about the Chiapas unrest, forget that a million Americans have been put out of work because of NAFTA and forget that 19 million more Mexicans now live in poverty than the pre-NAFTA era. McCain and Zakaria say NAFTA has been terrific for Mexico -- and so we should just accept that as fact.

Back in November, Time magazine's Joe Klein was humiliated for passing off patent lies as facts, and responded by saying "I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right." One journalism observer called it a low-point in the profession's history. But I would say Zakaria takes that distinction. In this column about trade, he actually comes right out and declares that when it comes to "the facts about trade," he has no interest in "go[ing] into them in any great detail."

Like the rest of his well-paid cronies in the media Establishment who rail on populism, he expects us to believe -- without a shred of actual factual proof or "reporting" -- that the poor farmer in the developing world is eager to be thrown off his land by subsidized multinational agribusiness companies; thrilled that the protectionist provisions in America's trade policy make medicine prices unaffordable for him and his family; upset that any American political leaders would talk about protecting his labor and human rights so as to prevent ongoing exploitation; and in awe of that supposedly great economic and political utopia known as Mexico -- a place where economic inequality, poverty and political unrest runs rampant.

This is the "expertise" of Fareed Zakaria -- the Very Important Person who helps dictate the terms of debate on international economic issues. And this is why that debate is so divorced from reality.

Cross-posted from CAF

Comments

[pmorlan]

Pitiful.

In my book Time & Newsweek are a waste of time until they get "real" reporters who actually report the facts.

[TRYKER]

LINK TV had a very good program on corporations over the week end. In fact they had so many good reports that it was mind boggling. The truth of it all is that huge multi corporations are raping the earth and reaping great rewards for themselves, while the 'little people' pay the price EVERY time.
Corporations and their shareholders are the gods and they trample the earth like there's no tomorrow....which if they continue in their ways, will be oh so true.

[TRYKER]

Thank you David for being the sanity we hope to prevail in the coming years, when MSM quacks its last lying breath.
If they repeat the lies long enough and often enough, we are supposed to then assume, its the truth. Thankfully, we are over that.

[LoRiseAntlers]

The worst thing that has happened in the history of this country has been the rise of the winger pundit class.They have distorted reality to the point that millions believe Ronnie Ray Gun won the Cold War all by himself,that Iraq was behind 9/11,and on and on.

Unless and until the left takes it's place in the media,these people will conyinue to warp the truth.

[thicky]

I can't wait until Zarkarias is on The Daily Show again. Then we can all watch as Jon Stewart kisses his corporate loving ass.

[akoop]

It is amazing how often the eliment of greed can be spun into an image of altruism. Similar to Fareed's pronouncement that all things global are best for all, Fox had an interesting segment the other day where the four 'experts' rotated the concept that all corporations are good for the working class because they create jobs.

I had to think for a moment if I actually new anyone of my investing friends if their investment was predicated on the creation of jobs or the opportunity to enhance their own wealth. I couldn't. Somehow, I think the interest of multi-national or trans-national corporations has little to do with enhancing/stabilizing the economies of sovereign nations but more in keeping with their own bottom line.

[BBackSoon]

As a Fly-over dweller I guess my simple opinion does not see the big picture that can only be clearly understood by those at the top of the food chain.

This is yet another person hammering away at falsehoods that will be swallowed by enough people to be perceived as fact when they are not. It is disappointing to think that Shame has no meaning to these types of people. I still have to wonder if they actually believe the garbage they spew or do they just do it to keep their cushy place in life?

[BeyondPopper]

I agree with every word you have said, except that you didn't go far enough.

The history of the right -- the history of the neocon movement in particular -- is example after example of them getting it wrong, and then being shoved up the food chain.

The iconic example is the so-called "Team B" exercise with the CIA, where the neocons told the CIA analysts that they were wrong about the Soviet Union. Which was true, except for the fact that Team B was even more wrong. The Soviet Union was not stronger than the CiA thought at the time -- which was what Team B claimed -- but weaker, and a the verge of collapsing. At which point the neocons claimed credit for causing something to happen that they never thought would.

The history of neocon mistakes, misunderstandings, and plain bone-headed idiocy is a long and complex tale of woe. One claimed the "End of History" that the neocon idea of free markets and democracy was the one, only idea that everyone believed. Many claimed that removing all restrictions from an economy would automatically bring the blessings of prosperity to one and all, and continued to make that claim as example after example of countries that did exactly as they recommended went belly-up. And, of course, the Iraq invasion has been the latest example of everything they touch turning to shit (anybody seen a flowering of freedom in the Middle East lately?), but as long as they own the media outlets, no one is supposed to notice.

So Zakaria vs. trade is but one, small example of the massive, disasterous reign of the incompetent and dishonest known by the deceptive neologism of neoconservative. Can someone finally reach the brilliant conclusion than, not only are these clowns stupid, but also lying, as well? Can we at last conclude that they act and write not in service to ideas or people, but the moneyed powers who are the only winners when oil is a hundred dollars a barrel, health care unaffordable, jobs disappearing, and the entire economy going down the tube?

They aren't really as stupid as they seem. They are greedy, and blind, and selfish beyond belief.

But they're making a good living.