Memo to Obama: You Can't Represent the Uprising While Undermining It
I'm in New York City for tonight's annual gala for the Progressive States Network. In researching my newspaper column that comes out later this week, I caught two stories on the wire that suggest Barack Obama thinks its possible to both represent the populist uprising that I describe in my book, while also undermining that uprising.
Here's the first story, from the Associated Press about the Obama campaign trying to court labor unions.
Yet, as Obama courts organized labor, we get this from Fortune magazine:
Obama: NAFTA not so bad after all The general campaign is on, independent voters up for grabs, and Barack Obama is toning down his populist rhetoric - at least when it comes to free trade. In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee suggests he doesn't want to unilaterally blow up NAFTA after all. "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake."
Clearly, Fortune breathlessly overstates what's going on here (which is typical of "journalist" Nina Easton), and I think Obama could be solid on trade. However, I'd still say this really shows the persistent power of Big Money over Obama and the Democratic Party. Here you have a policy - NAFTA - that is among the most unpopular policies of the last generation, according to polls. This is a policy that is one of the key catalysts in today's populist uprising on both the Right and Left. Here you have a candidate who campaigned against it in the primary. And within weeks of getting the general election, here you have that same candidate running to Corporate America's magazine of record to vaguely reassure Wall Street about that same policy.
This is precisely what the populist uprising that I describe in my new book is all about - a backlash to this kind of politics.
Obama is trying to find a "third way" on a binary issue. He's trying to make everyone happy - and he seems to think you can simultaneously appease Corporate America and American workers on trade rules that inherently force politicians to take one side or the other. You either have trade rules that are aimed at helping ordinary workers, or trade rules that are aimed at padding corporate profits and enriching a transnational elite. The idea that you can have both - or worse, that the NAFTA model does both - is absurd.
But this is Obama's M.O. - he wants to please everyone. The problem for him is that the public - based on polls - knows that these policies are binary and are screwing them. If he talks out of both sides of his mouth on this issue, he will fail to represent the uprising and take advantage of this populist moment - and he will likely lose the election. That would be a huge tragedy.
This is an ongoing series from the national tour for THE UPRISING. You can order The Uprising at Amazon.com or through your local independent bookstore.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Fortune is using pre-press to spin the interview. I think it's smarter to wait and react to the interview, and not a piece flakking it.
Exactly, notice quotes are incomplete, out of context, and the story comes out just when the headlines are screaming: McCain-Bush say Drill Drill Drill Offshore from FL and CA! Refute this pathetic non-story, here's Obama's speech to GM Assembly plant in WI 2/13/08:
http://my.
"...he will fail to represent the uprising and take advantage of this populist moment ..."
I don't think this will happen. We shall see, however.
Liberals need to get real on trade. Roughly one-third of the U.S. economy is internationally exposed, up from about 5% of the economy 40 years ago. We're not going to return to the 1950s and 1960s, nor are we going to be "energy independent" anytime soon, if ever.
And corporatists need to realize you can't sell your shit to people without money.
It's one of life's rich ironies that no one understands economics less than free market mousketeers.
How disingenuous to claim that trade is a binary issue! I'm surprise to hear this from David Sirota, of all people. Or maybe I'm not...
NAFTA cannot be confused with free trade, because it's really a labor displacement agreement. Protectionism is never the answer, but neither is allowing American corporations to move the majority of their labor to the developing world. Low import tariffs are good for consumers, but a race to the bottom of the labor market is devastating for consumers.
Organized labor is to the left as organized religion is to the right. The parties use them to court and mobilize their blue-collar constituencies. They serve the same important role in the lives of two different kinds of people: they provide dignity, empowerment, and hope in spite of the socioeconomic challenges facing the lower middle class.
But that doesn't mean that either group should dominate our politics, especially when their views lack nuance and balance. Unions are an essential part of any industrial economy. But latching onto NAFTA as a proxy issue for the inequitable distribution of wealth in our economy is no better than latching onto abortion as a proxy for moral decay.
The sentiment driving the labor movement is fundamentally about broad structural problems with our domestic policies that, once corrected, will allow globalization and free trade to actually work for the working class.
Like all of the major candidates, he's a sell-out. Exactly how much he is influenced by the corporations will slowly be revealed over the course of both his campaign and, if he wins in November, his presidency, though it probably will not be more than any of the other Democrats who've made a viable run in decades. Of course, one can always choose to vote for a third-party candidate, such as Nader or the Green Party nominee, who will probably be Cynthia McKinney. From what I've heard, neither is likely to cater to the companies -- Nader has challenged them a number of times before, and the Draft Manifesto for the Reconstruction Party, which McKinney helped create, has takes a strong stand on labor issues, although they are only briefly mentioned http://www
By reading your statement i can tell that you don't listen to Obama's speeches on this subject and you also believe everything you read, as i have said several times on this post. i have listed to this mans speeches on this matter numerous times and have been to his website as well and the article this person is talking about (if you read every thing) (that's why they call it research) you will be able to see that his talking point are exactly the same he has not changed his position. See that is what happens when you actually know about a candidate and do your own independent research instead of getting everything from a 3rd party. all i have to Say is Be informed, don't believe everything you read or get it from just one source. if you really wanted to know you would have went to his website and see his policies or found other articles to compare, Like when i hear things about mccain i can either choose to believe what others say or i can take the time to find the truth so that i don't go around spouting untruths about a person. I take the time to find more than one source.
I did not mention anywhere in my post that he has changed his position. I have looked at his site, though I will admit that I have not read all of it, I have read some of his speeches, and I have seen him in a couple of debates. In my previous post, I was only trying to point out that, while Obama may do well as a Democrat, he will not bring about the radical change this country needs. He, like every other major candidate, is bought to some degree by the corporations. Indeed, I would not even mind if it were not for his hordes of followers who simply take his word for it and do not do independent research involving several different sources when he says "change," even though the change he proposes is hardly a change at all!
Also, actions speak louder than words. Between Rezko and a very fishy ordeal involving a nuclear bill in Illinois, in which Obama revised it after receiving money from the company whose actions had prompted the bills creation, there is plenty reason to believe that businesses will come first. But, as I said, this is as new in a Democratic candidate as it is for the sky to be blue.
americans are looking for heroes, psychic connections, symbols, icons and the like. they don't care about policies. they are resigned. they lose a third of their real wages to mortgaged currency. they lose maybe 15% more at the pump. nobody believes it can be very different. the democrats don't have to do anything to get into office. it's just time to switch everybody knows it. i've voted for a few democrats, but they've always been a pro-war, pro-military party, as a third world proletariat is bound to be.
the democrats will stay in iraq, expand the afghanistan war, continue to isolate iran, permit cheap substandard goods to continue to flood the country at workers' expense. they will institute "national service" indenturement. health care will be compromised out to required coverage of cute puppies and the infant children of heroic combat veterans, covered by premium increases for everybody else.
internet access will be priced beyond the public the way recreational motoring has been. this will all happen under the coming democratic administration. so relax. nothing will change.
Okay, sorry, I read the post (didn't see the leak) how convient though all the stuff you left out. he is saying the same thing he has been saying, nothing different from what i heard. they only thing that i see is different from the primary to know is that all the hype is gone, but his position is still the same. do you even know what unilaterally means? here i will give you the definition.
1. relating to, occurring on, or involving one side only: unilateral development; a unilateral approach.
2. undertaken or done by or on behalf of one side, party, or faction only; not mutual: a unilateral decision; unilateral disarmament.
3. having only one side or surface; without a reverse side or inside, as a Möbius strip.
If he did do these Nafta Negotiation unilatearlly as you point out then he would be just like bush in the Iraq war when he did what ever he wanted to without regard to what the UN suggested. From my point of view you are supposed to hash things out with the people on all sides. Maybe you should read the article again yourself obviously you didn't understand it the first time
I have to agree. Obama has been pretty straightforward on this, so I am a little stunned that so many people have gotten his stance wrong. Obama has always said that NAFTA needed to be renegotiated, not one away with. He has never proposed nuking NAFTA.
There are two things he wants in the renegotiation:
1. Labor protections; and
2. Environmental safeguards.
I don't really see that this interview was a deviation from those two consistent points.
I agree that the Dems generally and Obama specifically need to stop pandering and playing the politician on issues to get a few votes. Now is the time in history where they can show a little backbone. This issue doesn't seem to be one of them, though.
Okay for one, he never said he was going to get rid of NAFTA, Hince the term Unilateraly Blow up NAFTA, read what you want into it, he has always said that he would re-negotiate NAFTA. Last time i checked re-negotiating was not the same as getting rid of it. Give me a break. Not only that the unions don't like NAFTA either from what i hear so what would be his motive for going back on that. last time i checked they lost jobs too. How about you give us the full quote to read for oursleves because all i see is your interpretation of what he said. How about doing something like that. I think that is odd since just yesterday he reiterated his stance on free trade and making sure it is smart and works for all of us. your article leaves much to be desired.
.-*
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
