Kerry's Crucible -- by William Greider

I found the following article to be quite insightful (on par for Greider, IMHO) and to raise some pretty serious concerns regarding what direction the Kerry campaign goes in. Personally, I'm hoping he rejects the advice of some of these "advisors" and instead realizes what got him to the point he's at now.


Election Matters
by WILLIAM GREIDER

(from the April 26, 2004 issue)

John Kerry is borne aloft by party unity and the overriding imperative of defeating Bush, but the senator has entered a perilous zone where the outcome may depend more on the content of his character. During the next few months, Kerry must somehow fend off the smears and caricatures broadcast by Bush's attack machine and, at the same time, define himself in more convincing terms for the broad audience of voters, many of whom know little or nothing about him. Who is John Kerry? What does he believe about the country? What do people get if they elect him?

So far, the candidate has been nimble and smart about counterpunching, issue by issue. A monthlong blitz of negative TV ads (with almost daily slurs from the Cheneyman) took a modest hit on Kerry's ratings, but nothing that can't be overcome. His performance on the second half of the challenge--defining John Kerry--seems weaker, with dismaying echoes of Clinton/Gore. I hope that judgment is premature, but the candidate does not have all summer to craft a compelling self-portrait. It's forming right now in the public mind and sounds more wonkish than inspiring.

SNIP...

The Kerry team, according to the Times, includes four other investment bankers. That's no doubt comforting to Wall Street donors, not so comforting to less-powerful constituencies. Sperling has already proclaimed in various articles "a new consensus on free trade" (this will be news to Kerry's labor supporters). In an "open memo" to the Democratic nominee on "How to Be a Free Trade Democrat" (published in Foreign Policy before Kerry locked up the nomination), Sperling sounded a lot like the DLC or even the Business Roundtable. "You must counter any notion that most of the job loss and economic dislocation in the United States flows directly from recent trade policies," he warned. In addition to defending the status quo, Sperling proposed old policy palliatives (some more than twenty years old) for assisting workers and communities after they are whacked by closed factories and lost jobs. "You are never going to make dislocation pleasant, but you can and must make it less traumatic," Sperling advised. Imagine the throngs of unemployed machinists and software engineers turning out the Kerry vote to win "less traumatic" dislocations.

SNIP...

This is the test of character he faces: Which John Kerry is running for President? The cautious and conventional senator who has always championed free trade, or the comeback politician who plays to win and will do whatever it takes? The choice cannot be left to policy advisers.

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0409-07.htm

I think the Nation is subscriber only online now.

they are correct in saying that "You must counter any notion that most of the job loss and economic dislocation in the United States flows directly from recent trade policies"

Our economic dominance arose first from our huge and efficient manufacturing capacity. Later, it relied on our burgeoning service sector. Both of these were bolstered by our advantage in techonology. Economic history shows that advantages due to technology tend to disappear over time as other countries adopt the newest technologies. IMO, this is the main cause for why so many or our jobs are being shipped overseas.

Also, unlike the DLC, Kerry is NOT pushing Free Trade. His use of Clinton's economic team is directed at getting people to associate Kerry's economic positions with the popularity of Clinton's successful economic legacy.

I'll go read the rest of it now

IMO, Greider mixes up and confuses and conflates the political aspects of economic issues and the economic aspects of these economic issues. He argues as to why Kerry's policies will not be particularly effective in saving US jobs, and then uses that to argue that Kerry's stated policies are POLITICALLY ineffective. IOW, he argued about the real economic effect of his policies and then argued that that meant it would not be accepted politically. He ignores the possibility that an ineffective economic policy (and I'm not saying it's ineffective, Greider is) could be sold to the public, much as Clinton did.

He also makes a political argument (ie that a pledge to not sign any free trade agreements would gain Kerry votes) without backing it up. He points out that such a pledge would be welcomed by many union members (and I'm sure it would) but he gives no consideration to those who would be opposed to such a pledge, like all those service companies that want to break into new markets overseas. Many of the people who work for those companies (many based in Democratic NYC) are Democrats.

IMHO, your post says that you're forming your opinions on what you subconsciously want to hear rather than taking the article at face value.

Greider's arguments regarding the Midwest are pretty much dead-on, IMHO. People in the ravaged industrial belt (and I do mean RAVAGED, considering I grew up in Western PA, a part of this area) are HURTING right now. They have seen their jobs steadily shipped overseas in search of higher returns for the past 30 years, with no relief in sight.

Economically-speaking, championing the extension of the policies that have hurt them will do nothing to assist them in economic recovery. Politically-speaking, promoting policies that as Gene Sperling stated, "You are never going to make dislocation pleasant, but you can and must make it less traumatic," will most likely result in Greider's prediction: "Imagine the throngs of unemployed machinists and software engineers turning out the Kerry vote to win 'less traumatic' dislocations."

The cozyness with the Bob Rubin crowd concerns me, to be quite honest. In many of the books I have read concerning economic issues -- Wealth and Democracy, Blowback, and The Sorrows of Empire -- the refrain is consistent. We have traded our manufacturing and service based economy for a finance-based one. Bob Rubin is a fierce advocate of the finance-based economy, and all of the accompanying (but unacknowledged) inequalities that go along with it. While this is something that has been going on for the past 30 years or so -- starting primarily with the abolishment of Bretton-Woods under Nixon and our favorable treatment of Japanese and Korean exports due to national security concerns -- it has been hastened under the frantic drive for "free trade".

You said, He also makes a political argument (ie that a pledge to not sign any free trade agreements would gain Kerry votes) without backing it up. He points out that such a pledge would be welcomed by many union members (and I'm sure it would) but he gives no consideration to those who would be opposed to such a pledge, like all those service companies that want to break into new markets overseas. I am surprised that, rather than countering with this rather suspect statement (making it an either/or issue) you did not suggest that Kerry's call to immediately review all existing trade pacts and to refuse to sign on to any additional ones that did not contain adequate protections of labor and the environment might just address this concern. Perhaps it is something that Greider should have acknowledged in his article, further striking the contrast between what got Kerry to this point (showing that he's a fighter) with what his advisers are now telling him to do (placate Wall Street).

You and Greider are right that Free Trade doesn't play well in the Mid West. However, I would point out that Dems are found in areas of the country other than the Mid West and in jobs that are not union jobs. Greider did not consider this in his article.

Economically-speaking, championing the extension of the policies that have hurt them

That assumes that Kerry has championed the extension of those policies. He isn't. I suspect you may be the one forming opinions based on your assumption that Free Trade is and will always be, one thing in particular (ie. what it is today)

Politically-speaking, promoting policies that as Gene Sperling stated, "You are never going to make dislocation pleasant, but you can and must make it less traumatic," will most likely result in Greider's prediction: "Imagine the throngs of unemployed machinists and software engineers turning out the Kerry vote to win 'less traumatic' dislocations."

I don't remember Kerry ever saying anything like that, and if he has, it certainly isn't a centerpiece (or any sort of focal point) of his economic policies.

The cozyness with the Bob Rubin crowd concerns me...

It concerns me too. Keven Phillips calls this the "financialization" of the economy, and he says it's an indication of a coming bubble burst. However, arguments about the economic effects of an economic policy are not the same as arguments about the POLITICAL effects of an economic policy. They do intersect and relate to each other, but they are different things, and can not be randomly swapped with each other.

I am surprised that, rather than countering with this rather suspect statement (making it an either/or issue)

I'm not making it an either/or situation. I'm pointing out that it's no so simple as "pick this position - win votes". Every position both attracts and repels votes. Greider did nothing to show that the number of votes attracted would be greater than the # of votes repelled.

you did not suggest that Kerry's call to immediately review all existing trade pacts and to refuse to sign on to any additional ones that did not contain adequate protections of labor and the environment might just address this concern.

Maybe I read it wrong, but I thought Greider called for a complete renunciation of new trade pacts. I'll go back and check

on edit:

OK, I re-read it. Here's what Greider said:

Kerry doesn't need a comprehensive reform plan. His sincerity will be conveyed by saying something like this: "A lot of people are asking how America can sustain its middle class if we keep losing so many good jobs overseas. That's a good question, and I intend to find the right answers. There will be no more free-trade agreements until I succeed."

So Greider isn't saying that Kerry shouldn't just wait for labor and environmental standards to be included before signing a free trade pact. He's going much further than that. Greider is saying that Kerry must solve the outsourcing problem before he signs another free trade pact.

IMO, the most basic problem with global trade and how it results in lost jobs for Americans is not going to be solved by signing or not signing trade pacts. It has to do with creating completely new jobs in completely new industries. (See one of my posts above which suggests that energy and medicine are promising areas where we might be able to create new industries)

Ine thing that bothers me is a tendency of some to assume that a candidates position is 100% consistent with that of their advisors. Though I am concerned about the financialization of our economy, I do not assume that is Kerry's position merely because Bob Rubin has given advice to Kerry.

However, I am still concerned about this.

Ine thing that bothers me is a tendency of some to assume that a candidates position is 100% consistent with that of their advisors. Though I am concerned about the financialization of our economy, I do not assume that is Kerry's position merely because Bob Rubin has given advice to Kerry.

Did I say this was the case? Did Greider in the article? Or was the attempt rather to point out a certain TREND, and draw the conclusion that this TREND may indicate that policies will be leading in a certain direction.

From the article: "This group is consulting literally daily with Bob Rubin," Altman gushed. Former Treasury Secretary Rubin gave us NAFTA and other free-trade milestones that led to the jobs hemorrhage.

Agree or disagree that Rubin "gave us" the "milestones that led to the jobs hemmorage." But it's pretty hard to refute that a person's advice is not being seriously considered if he is being consulted DAILY. I would feel much more comfortable if someone like Robert Reich were being consulted with the same frequency, because it would tell me that the candidate is more interested in developing a "complete" perspective on economic matters. Given the fact that virtually all the advisers share similar economic views, I cannot afford the luxury of such a questionable hope.

I called it an assumption because it's not stated (assumptions rarely are) and because aside from the fact that Rubin is Kerry's advisor, there's little reason to think that Kerry agrees with the specific Rubin-advice that Greiders mentions. IOW, I don't see any trend other than an attempt by Kerry to associate himself with the successful economy under Clinton.

But it's pretty hard to refute that a person's advice is not being seriously considered if he is being consulted DAILY

And it's just as hard to prove that the advice is being listened to merely because he's talking to Kerry's campaign on a daily basis. They may be doing that just to foster the impression (but not the reality) that Kerry's eco policies will be like Clintons (or Rubin's, etc)

I would feel much more comfortable if someone like Robert Reich were being consulted with the same frequency...

DO you know that Reich is NOT being consulted as frequently, or do you just assume he isn't because greider hasn't said so? My understanding was that Kerry and Reich were tight.

I would feel much more comfortable if someone like Robert Reich were being consulted with the same frequency...

DO you know that Reich is NOT being consulted as frequently, or do you just assume he isn't because greider hasn't said so? My understanding was that Kerry and Reich were tight.

You're right. I don't know that he isn't, and he very well could be.

I admit that I place a good deal of confidence in Greider's reporting, having read his columns for some time and especially from his books (The Soul of Capitalism is one of the best books I've ever read). However, he does appear to harbor a deep-seated distrust of the "Clinton cabal" of economic advisers -- a distrust that I readily admit that I share -- that may, at times, cloud his judgement on these issues.

Some of the policies they pursued hurt millions of ordinary Americans (and people overseas too) in order to benefit the political donor class. IMO, that's enough to justify concern.

you did not suggest that Kerry's call to immediately review all existing trade pacts and to refuse to sign on to any additional ones that did not contain adequate protections of labor and the environment might just address this concern.

Maybe I read it wrong, but I thought Greider called for a complete renunciation of new trade pacts. I'll go back and check

This is a strawman, sangha. I'll restate my ENTIRE thought on this issue so as to remove this diversion from consuming the argument.

I am surprised that, rather than countering with this rather suspect statement (making it an either/or issue) you did not suggest that Kerry's call to immediately review all existing trade pacts and to refuse to sign on to any additional ones that did not contain adequate protections of labor and the environment might just address this concern. Perhaps it is something that Greider should have acknowledged in his article, further striking the contrast between what got Kerry to this point (showing that he's a fighter) with what his advisers are now telling him to do (placate Wall Street).

Summarizing, I acknowledged that Greider might have provided a good POSITIVE point for Kerry in contrast with the advice he's now receiving from financial types by highlighting this Kerry pledge -- and how it could be used to win over union voters.

You and Greider are right that Free Trade doesn't play well in the Mid West. However, I would point out that Dems are found in areas of the country other than the Mid West and in jobs that are not union jobs. Greider did not consider this in his article.

No. What Greider considered in the article is this: If Kerry is to defeat Bush, it must be done in the industrial Midwest, where job losses are most severe. Kerry wins by carrying Ohio and Missouri, plus a few Western states Bush won in 2000. For this, he needs not more sophisticated waffling but gut-level intensity.

Is Kerry going to lose NY, CT, MA or NJ? The only one that COULD be called into question would be NJ, and I'd even put that at a long-shot. However, Greider is right that, given the current electoral realities, this race will most likely be decided in the Midwest -- and Democrats in OH, MO, MI, etc. are not exactly overwhelming proponents of current trade practices.

Politically-speaking, promoting policies that as Gene Sperling stated, "You are never going to make dislocation pleasant, but you can and must make it less traumatic," will most likely result in Greider's prediction: "Imagine the throngs of unemployed machinists and software engineers turning out the Kerry vote to win 'less traumatic' dislocations."

I don't remember Kerry ever saying anything like that, and if he has, it certainly isn't a centerpiece (or any sort of focal point) of his economic policies.

That's not the point. The point is that this is typical of the crowd that has been brought on board as Kerry's economic advisers. If Kerry were to outright reject such statements, then what sense would it make for him to maintain such close ties with these people? I'm not bringing this up out of some deep-seated desire for Kerry to lose (nor do I think Greider is) -- rather, it's to point out the dangerous road that embracing such ideas might lead down, and looking to stop going too far down that road.

I even noted that maybe I had re-read it wrong. In a later note, I pointed out that there's a difference between what Greider is calling for (ie a solution to the problems of Americans losing their jobs to Free Trade) and what Kerry has proposed (ie reviewing the labor and environmental provisions of Free Trade agreements). Simply put, labor and environmental provision, no matter how tight, will not eliminate the problem of americans losing their jobs because our overseas competitors will still have an advantage when it comes to labor costs.

And yes, I realize that you were making an positive argument for Kerry's positions. I was just pointing out that it doesn't really address Greider's concern (an economic argument). As a political matter, Kerry's position is a plus.

No. What Greider considered in the article is this: If Kerry is to defeat Bush, it must be done in the industrial Midwest, where job losses are most severe. Kerry wins by carrying Ohio and Missouri, plus a few Western states Bush won in 2000. For this, he needs not more sophisticated waffling but gut-level intensity.

Yes, but that gut-level intensity might make it more difficult to win in other states that aren't so anti-Free Trade, such as in the South. And please note that my position is not that it wouldn't be a plus. It just might. However, I won't believe it unless I see an objective analysis, and that means considering *ALL* of the effects of such a policy, and not just how it affects one or two segments of the voting population.

The point is that this is typical of the crowd that has been brought on board as Kerry's economic advisers.

I don't assume a candidates views are 100% in agreement with their advisors. My understanding is that Kerry is using Clinton's eco team in order to get potential voters to associate him with Clinton's economic success, and not any specific Clinton policy. While I would agree with you that it would not be a good idea for Kerry to embrace the views of Clinton's economic team, I don't see that happening. IOW, I'm concerned about this and keeping an eye open for it, but I'm not assuming that this is true.

Free trade is both good and bad; i think anybody who spends time studying it has to see that. Case in point; without cheap foreign labor, many items available in the united states would be priced out of the reach of many of our citizens; but there are also costs to be paid for cheap goods, specifically in the lack of jobs for Americans, and in the terrible working conditions in cheap labor land.

In my mind the best solution is to work on making Free Trade work, as much as possible, for everybody involved, instead of just chucking it out as a bad system.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

See my second post in this thread, where I discuss the fact that there are many Dems who benefit from Free Trade. The issue for Dems isn't simply "Union members oppose Free Trade, and union members tend to be Dem, so we should oppose Free Trade"

The way I see it, the "problem" with Free Trade (ie the US losing jobs) is caused not by Free Trade, but by the fact that the developing nations ar doing just that...developing.

They are building factories and educating their populations -or, at least a portion of it- so that they can compete. Given their clear advantage with respect to labor costs, it's inevitable that some jobs are going to flow to these nations.

IMO, there's really only one solution to this problem and that is we need to create new jobs, and by "new jobs" I don't mean create additional positions on an assembly line. That's just more of the same old jobs, and not "new" jobs. I'm talking about jobs that don't even exist today. I think that the most promising areas for these new jobs lie in developing alternative clean sources of energy, and medicine.

There is no such thing as "free trade". Trade always has been regulated to certain degrees, and always will be. Free trade is little more than a label conjured up by the neoliberals who have attempted to twist the ideas of Smith and Ricardo into justifying neverending corporate expansion. Anyone who opposes such ideas is vilified as being against the "lifting of standards of living" for the poor around the planet.

The funny thing is that the policies advocated by these economists and policymakers -- currency speculation, government austerity, opening of all manufacturing and service markets to full global competition -- have actually significantly SLOWED the growth rates in developing nations over the past 20 years as opposed to the 20 years prior.

Trade between nations, like all business transactions, will always need to be regulated. The question is (and Greider raises this in his excellent work, The Soul of Capitalism) whether such regulation will be used to further enrich the already wealthy, or if it will be used to benefit the common good, reduce inequalities and promote accepted social norms -- while still allowing business to profit, just not at the expense of the general welfare?

Personally, I would choose the latter. I also would hope that Kerry is going to as well, despite the advice being given to him by many of his current corporatist advisors.

I didn't argue for deregulated trade; Free Trade refers more specifically to terrifs; taxes on goods, often designed to remove foreign competition. Tarrifs could, I suppose, be posted in the umbrella term of regulation, but I'm not sure they fit very comfrotably there.

In other words Free Trade is free of tarrifs, not free of regulation.

The only reason I could think of that you would take umbrage at such a label is if you felt it was being applied to you.

Free trade, as you have defined it, can only truly exist between nations with relatively comparable economies. All industrialized nations in the world got to where they are today not by instantly opening up their domestic economies to outside competition, but by protecting their native industries. The reason that countries like South Korea, Japan, and currently China were able to achieve massive development is that they used import substitution, technology transfer demands and protective tariffs while their economies were developing. Of course, in the case of ROK and Japan, their ability to do this had a lot to do with the implicit trade of opening US markets to their exports in exchange for continued military presence.

The US itself was an extremely protective nation during its own industrial development. Britain didn't advocate free trade during the 19th century until it had established economic dominance throughout its colonies -- THEN it demanded that they all open up their economies (case in point, textiles and India).

and say that that is why bryant69 says " IT depends on what you mean by free trade"

You provided a description of "Free Trade" as it is being practiced, in order to refute the idea that there is no such thing as Free Trade. I would argue that Free Trade could be defined as trade that is free of rules that are meant to favor a group for political reasons. Such trade would not be free from regulation, but those regulations would be designed to benefit the common good, and not just those with political power.

Of course, that definition does not descrive our current Free Trade policies. I was referring to what could be. Free Trade need not necessarily be defined as it is today. IOW, we could define the "Free" in Free Trade as "free from political favoritism" and NOT "free from all regulation"

"I would argue that Free Trade could be defined as trade that is free of rules that are meant to favor a group for political reasons. "

This is never going to happen in the real world.Ever.
There will always be some form of rules meant to favor some group.

... are completely blind to the realities of the world in which we must all operate. In fact, it was the period in which economics went from being an analysis of what worked and what didn't to an emphasis on mathematical theories devoid of real-world considerations that much of this "free trade" stuff came to the fore.

I'm not discounting the value of mathematical economic models. As an engineer and aspiring Physics teacher, I can fully appreciate the value of mathematics. The problem lies when mathematical analysis takes over our entire realm of thought -- especially in arenas so susceptible to the capricious demands of human nature, many of which capable of blowing mathematical models straight to hell.

and I'm very suspicious of conclusions that are based on "self-evident" evidence that is defended with claims that those who don't accept the self-evidency are "blind to the realities of the world in which we must all operate"

IMO, that's not the sign of someone willing to accept the possibility that they are in error.

Do you make yourself dizzy with such pronouncements, sangha?

I would think that I have demonstrated quite a bit of flexibility of thought on these boards over time. Your attempt to portray my views as inflexible or unable to admit that I might be in error are just plain disingenuous, and you know it.

What I was referring to are the likes of the IMF economists and the Chicago School who have championed the ideals of "neoliberalism", with disastrous consequences to almost all of those subjected to their theories -- except, of course, those who were already well-off and/or well-connected.

I stated an opinion. Is that not allowed?

If there are any pronouncements, it's "Proof positive that "theories" of "free trade"...are completely blind to the realities of the world in which we must all operate"

"Proof positive" isn't a pronouncement, but my "I am suspicious..." is a pronouncement?

And there's more to the argument in favor of trade than mathematical formulas. The idea that it's all mathematical formulas is another self-evident pronouncement. As I pointed out, many Dems support Free Trade because it allows service corps to enter new markets. This is not a mathematical argument. It's a real argument.


I would think that I have demonstrated quite a bit of flexibility of thought on these boards over time. Your attempt to portray my views as inflexible or unable to admit that I might be in error are just plain disingenuous, and you know it.

I said nothing about your viewS (note the plural). I said something about your ONE statement in ONE post, and it was you who described those who disagree as being "blind to reality".

Here is what I said

"I'm very suspicious of conclusions that are based on "self-evident" evidence that is defended with claims that those who don't accept the self-evidency are "blind to the realities of the world in which we must all operate""

56kid said that there will ALWAYS be rules to help the politcally connected, and provided no support for that claim. It's basis is self-evidency". It needs no support because it's assumed to be correct.

You responded by agreeing, and the only argument you make regarding that is that those who think otherwise are "blind to reality" as if all it took to realize you are right is to look at it. That's what "self-evident" means.

Actually., Kerry would do well to highger a whole team of smart progressives, like Greider, Jim Hightower, etc. who know the real deal and can get Kerry to articulate something beyond the boring DLCenter.

The Repukes put a lot of effort into packaging their policies in a way that sends the right messages to their extremist fringes, while not scaring away theie more moderate supporters. Kerry could benefit from a similar effort, but he needs the advice of progressives in order to pull it off.