Redefining Truth

» GeraldS_2 - Phil, I enjoyed this column.

But did I detect a slight note of sarcasm???

I notice that none of the conservative people come over here for discussion. I guess they know where they will receive tough sledding.

Keep up the good work.

-- posted by GeraldS_2

Permalink Print Discussion

» not_him_again - Here's one

Here is one conservative, and tough sledding is nothing new to Buchananites.

I would agree that the Republican Party is trying to avoid further damage. However, one of the more sensible conservatives realize what is really wrong with the party, and is running his campaign to redefine conservativism. When, and if, his message does get out to the American Public, they may be less interested in certain aspects of Clinton-gore thought.

Pat visited a closed Fruit of the Loom Plant, according to his web site. Funny how our pro-worker Administration was not there...I wonder why that could be?

Maybe he anticipated tough sledding there?

-- posted by not_him_again

Permalink Print Discussion

» GeraldS_2 - Brian,

Years ago I used to watch Buchanan on CNN's Crossfire. He was an anti-labor, racist bigot. Buchanan was part of the Reagan administration. Where was he when Ronnie crushed the controller's strike? He was on CNN defending the action.

I have to admit that Clinton is a right-winger but he can't hold a candle compared to Buchanan.

-- posted by GeraldS_2

Permalink Print Discussion

» not_him_again - Again, I say what I said on the other thread

Gerrry, I simply want to ask you some questions;

1. Other than Mr. Buchanan, can you name anyone (other than Mr. Nader, I agree) that is leading the charge against free trade?

2. You once asked, Alex I believe, to name anyone who benefited from free trade, did you not? I think the answer to that is "the rich". And I suspect you would agree., right?

3. I would vote for Mr. Buchanan for a number of reasons; however, what reasons does any industrial worker have to vote for Mr. Clinton? Or Mr. Gore, equally supportive of free trade (indeed he was the one who beat Ross Perot in a tv Nafta debate, remember?)

4. As I understand it, a Steelworkers local recently gave money to Pat Buchanan. Is this because he is "anti labor" or rather is it because they recognize who their friends are and who they are not?

5. Would you say that all right wingers are anti-labor and all left wingers are not? Or rather is the issue that some people on both the left and the right are anti labor- specifically those who support free trade policies?

6. If the Democratic Party is so pro-labor, why did Mr. Gephardt withdraw from the Presidential race?

I do not doubt your commitment to labor; I do not doubt the honest desire of many old-time liberals (as opposed to new democrats) to labor; but that should not entitle the Democratic Party to a free ride on the backs of industrial workers who are becoming a vanishing breed in the US.

You might check my comments on the other thread about this subject in reply to your asking where I have been. I have no quarrel with old-time liberals, but I will not stand by and see my union rubberstamp away their jobs for a globalist agenda formulated by egg-headed elitists
who have little if any connection to working people.

Show me a Democrat against free trade and internationalism, and I will consider voting for him, and supporting him. Until then, Mr. Buchanan remains the best friend of factory workers.

-- posted by not_him_again

Permalink Print Discussion

» GeraldS_2 - Brian: I answer.

1. Other than Mr. Buchanan, can you name anyone (other than Mr. Nader, I agree) that is leading the charge against free trade?

Right now Brian, I cannot. But the major periodical of the liberal wing is The Nation Magazine which is strongly opposed to the Administration's trade policy. A champion in this endeavor is William Greider who is a frequent contributor to the magazine. Clinton has double crossed us on trade as well as many other policy positions.

2. You once asked, Alex I believe, to name anyone who benefited from free trade, did you not? I think the answer to that is "the rich". And I suspect you would agree, right?

Brian, I have had to expand my thinking on this matter because I had expected our economy to collapse before this as a result of our export of industry. Economic growth has continued, in fact we are enjoying the longest period of growth in recent history. But a good portion of the rest of the world is in recession, or worse.

So the truth is, all, or almost all, of us have benefitted from our trade policy----SO FAR ! This is borne out by observation. The question is, WHERE WILL IT END?

In the past, when we suffered a recession, the major part of the suffering was in our cities, our centers of industry. In the Great Depression, one of the hardest hit areas of the country was Detroit. This was because slowdowns in our economy result from overproduction. When everyone has the best automobile he can afford, the demand for new autos slows to a crawl.

What has happened now is that we have exported a large portion of our manufacturing potential. Demand for manufactured items is rapidly declining. But that portion of our industry located off shore is taking the hit. We have exported recession !!! But that is not the end of the matter. More on this later.

3. I would vote for Mr. Buchanan for a number of reasons; however, what reasons does any industrial worker have to vote for Mr. Clinton? Or Mr. Gore, equally supportive of free trade........

The answer to that is No reason. Please do not commit to Buchanan yet. There will be a major realignment in both parties, wait and see what evolves. But I must parry with, "What reason did any industrial worker have for voting for R. Reagan? They did, in droves."

5. Would you say that all right wingers are anti-labor and all left wingers are not?

Brian, both extremes are composed of people who have special interests or, more accurately, special preferences. Each party cannot conform to all of the various combinations of preferences of everyone, so they each espouse policies they can live with which will appeal to the largest block of voters.

The Republican party is controlled primarily by the rich and powerful and their main objectives are to reduce government's authority to regulate business in any way and to shift the tax burden of the country away from the wealthy and toward the less wealthy--the flat tax. Now there are a lot of splinter groups who hold some issue as important e. g. the "religious right" who oppose abortion (for some reason) and the National Rifle Association members who believe that every lunatic and/or criminal should be able to possess a firearm.

The Democratic Party used to be controlled by the intellectual block along with labor. These issues fit very well with "free choice", firearms control, aid to dependent children, assistance to eduction, and progressive taxation, where the wealthy pay higher rates proportional to their income.

-- posted by GeraldS_2

Permalink Print Discussion

» not_him_again - You sound like an independent!

Gerry, I am glad to see your last posting- you sound more like an independent. That is what I want to hear more of!

You said the Democrats used to be (?) Does this mean you recoginize that they are no longer the party of the past? That is why I vote for Pat, and why I vote independent in national elections (Perot in 96, and I wrote in Jerry Brown in 92)..

My quarrel is not with old time liberals, but with so-called "new democrats" and their internationalist leanings. We both oppose free trade because it is unfair to working people, right?

But I also oppose it because it is a necessary precondition to a world government/economic structure. If there is no free trade, there can be no new world order. Can't we work together for a common interest?

-- posted by not_him_again

Permalink Print Discussion

» Lawhawk - While Pat was visiting the Fruit of the Loom plant, the Presiden

While Pat was visiting the Fruit of the Loom plant, the President was in Latin America advancing American interests in a region that the US has always considered its backyard. His aid package was designed to reduce the suffering of millions displaced, injured and harmed by the devastating Hurricane Mitch.

-- posted by Lawhawk

Permalink Print Discussion

» not_him_again - Glad to hear that!

I am very pleased that Mr. Clinton was doing such charitable work. Perhaps soon we will see some action to achieve wage parity between the workers of Latin America and here? Say a law that we will not import products made by dollar an hour labor without a tarriff?

Or a move to disenfranchise corporations that practice wage slavery? Child labor? Unsafe practices? Outlawing organizing? Surely this expert in empathy can stand up to those corporate interests who practice these things.

Far be it from me to think that the real reason there is so little action on these issues is that our political system is ruled by money.

Show me a lot less greenbacks, and a lot more Ghandhi, and I just might put down Washington's picture, and vote thumbs up for a new world order. Until then, I think I know what internationalism, is all about. GREED AND LOVE OF POWER- PERIOD!

Wouldn't surprise me at all to see some new factory jobs - formerly US- spring up in the wake of Hurricane Mitch, as our so-honorable business and finance community rushes to "help" them. And if they should make a healthy profit paying them wages you couldn't feed a dog on, naturally we mustn't question their motives.

As long as there is air in my lungs, and my clumsy, uneducated fingers can still type, I will fight those who are the enemies of working people and freedom here and around the world. I am a poor and very imperfect warrior, but I will try to stem the tide.

God bless our republic!

-- posted by not_him_again

Permalink Print Discussion

» JS_Mill - Brian, you don't help the poor of the world by not trading

Brian, you don't help the poor of the world by not trading with them. Far better in my view for the burden of adjustment to a new economy to be born by the US (with its relatively generous unemployment insurance) losing jobs in manufacturing industries and creating them in other sectors, than by driving the Third World (where there is effectively no safety net) into penury.

It's one of the great fallacies of Marxist economics, in my opinion, to suggest that capital appropriates the benefits of free trade while labour benefits from protectionism. The empirical evidence I've seen (admittedly not much) suggests the opposite. If you want to know why American manufacturing wages are falling, look at the "surplus army of labour" in your own prisons, not overseas.

jsm

-- posted by JS_Mill

Permalink Print Discussion

» not_him_again - Numbers

the amount of surplus labor in our prisons can hardly compare with the number of helpless, exploited people in the third world.

Support a worldwide minimum wage and I might consider internationalism. Otherwise, it remains a money grubbing sham.

-- posted by not_him_again

Permalink Print Discussion