Democratic leader congressman Dick Gephardt went completely ballistic when he learned trade representative Mickey Kanter had failed to include in the Nafta Treaty a provision that Mexico make their minimum wage increase in proportion to their per capital increase in GDP. Kanter said Mexico would not sign any deal with that provision. Gephardt correctly understood what would happen, that Mexican wages would fail to rise much. The economic idea is that free trade between a rich nation and a poor one would would see both prosper and would not lead to a job drain to the poor nation because prosperity would reduce the wage discrepancy.

Gephardt saw it coming.

At the same time, Gephardt sort of rode the middle of the fence between being a labor/health care advocate and ... well, for lack of a better word at the moment, corporatist.

Isn't he now and hasn't he been a big corporate lobbyist the past 10 years or so?

He continues to work for better labor relations and human rights. When he was an active politician, the unions endorsed him.

I almost didn't answer this post. I was too busy laughing out loud at the use of the word "corporatist." It tells me a lot about you. I get very tired of seeing the word "corporatist" here when talking about good Democrats. Go after the repiggies, who are the true corporatists.

http://www.gephardtgroup.com/Honorable-Richard-Gephardt

Yeah, I understand your reaction to the word and actually did think twice before using it, but couldn't come up with a better term at the moment. To be honest, I don't personally recall seeing it used here ... but that may just be because the word doesn't strike my hot button.

Sorry (for my l;ast post and this one in advance) if it tires you to hear other's views about our party, its current or past leaders, and/or how it has changed over time. I'd like to think that all democrats share the concern for how corporate money has and continues to corrupt and undermine our democratic representative process. It simply does not work well currently for the vast majority of working class Americans. I'm sure you know and understand this. What I don't get it why anyone would object to folks calling it out, calling a spade a spade so to speak.

I'll take the time to explain the way I view it in the hope that perhaps you will better understand where this comes from - for me at least -- and not simply ridicule my views. To my thinking, public service is a higher calling. Unfortunately, too many don't meet that calling when it comes to economic justice. The only way that will change is by recognizing and calling it out where and when it occurs regardless of the degree to which an individual exhibits it (whatever you want to call it -- corporatist is just a convenient one word label which I will grant you is totally inadequate when parsing the degree to which various elected officials are influenced or purchased by corporate money). The degree doesn't really matter when the sum effect is vastly negative for the majority.

As for getting elected and working as an elected official, while I understand that one must compromise some of their own personal principles to be successful in any endeavor that requires working well with other interests, small compromises over time can and have led to massive negative consequences. Without drawing attention to this, there is really no hope of ever seeing that change in a significant, meaningful way. That's the conclusion I have drawn over the past 45 years of voting for Democrats without exception.

By the way, I personally am economically set. I am retired with plenty of income. The system served me well during my time obviously. Just didn't want you to get the impression that I'm just whining over sour grapes. This isn't about me. And I'm not being "righteous" (a response I sometimes see to comments like the one I just made), just stating how I feel about our current political system after a lifetime of observation. Like you, I am tired ... but perhaps unlike you of seeing
people criticized for focusing on economic concerns especially when it involves criticizing Democratic officials and candidates.

The far left is doing as much to harm our party as the republicans. Your lecturing and condescension are not needed. Goodbye.

"Far left". You don't have a clue about me and my political views. And what is the "far left"? For the sake of clarity here, do you have a definition? Can you even explain what that means as far as policy differences?

By the way this IS OUR party. I've been a member since 1972. You? As for harm, I see past party economic policy and inaction itself as a source of much of that harm. If you don't like or agree with that, too bad. I'm not going away.

Re: goodbye. Okay. I complimented you on the history you provided, mentioned that I had some different understandings about Gephardt's post Congressional career, and then was basically ridiculed for expressing my understanding ("lectured" at, "condescended" to are better descriptors perhaps).

So here's the thing. We see things differently. We both claim to be loyal democratic party members. Here at DU, you can ignore or block me if you do not appreciate, enjoy or even want to hear my views. You have the right and ability to do that. In the meantime, I will engage in conversations here that pique my interest and/or I see fit and sufficiently important to me to spend my time on as I choose.