|
"When everyone thinks alike, no one is thinking very much." -- Walter Lippman, Dean of American Pundits With a few notable exceptions, the American Punditocracy has branded the defeat of Fast Track a blow to American international leadership and a victory for Big Labor protectionism. "When everyone thinks alike, no one is thinking very much," Walter Lippmann once observed in words that aptly describe this week's flurry of Monday morning punditry. In fact, the defeat of fast track was a more complicated -- and more welcome event -- than the op-edsters admit. Here are three reasons why: 1. Democratic Renewal. More than fear of labor, the defeat of fast-track reflected a populist rebellion against the idea that corporate lobbyists have an exclusive right to craft the rules of the new, global economy. As Rep. David Bonior observed, "It's the people against the elite and the corporate giants." (Washington Post. 11/10/97) Not just labor, but a diverse coalition, including grass-roots environmentalists, were key to defeating Fast Track. As the New York Times observed, environmental groups as well as labor lobbyists were "out in force in the corridors of the Capital this [last] weekend" to "ferociously oppose the [Fast Track] bill." (NYT 11/10/97) In fact, pressure from environmentalists cemented Fast Track's defeat. As the Washington Post reported (11/11), "later support [ie, in the final week] for the Gephardt position came from more moderate Democrats concerned with such issues as the environment." Rather than an exclusively labor victory, "the winner in the fast-track outcome [was] the growing alliance of diverse interests that includes AFL-CIO president John Sweeney, Ralph Nader, [and] the Sierra Club..." the Post concluded. (Washington Post, 11/11) 2. Standards, not Protectionism. The pundits invoked "protectionism" to pillory those who opposed Fast Track. In fact, many in opposition to Fast Track simply want to apply the same principles to international commerce which Americans assume for domestic commerce. Ohio is not forced to compete with Michigan on the basis of unequal labor and environmental standards. Yet "free traders" want America to compete with Indonesia and Argentina without any such agreed-upon "rules of the game." Important congressional opinion leaders such as Nita Lowey (D-NY) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) saw through these phony "free trade" arguments. They stepped forward in the final days of this debate to oppose the Clinton Fast Track arguing that America's trade policy must be built on high environmental and labor standards. "We must ensure that our trade policies address critical labor, environmental and food safety issues." said Rep. Nita Lowey. "This Fast Track fails that fundamental test." And to prove that her decision reflected principles, rather than labor pressure, Lowey has refused further labor contributions toward her reelection bid. (Washington Post, 11/10/97) 3. Breaking Eggs, Making Omelets. Finally, the defeat of Fast Track was an intentional strategy chosen in order to break the momentum of trade talks and to set them on a more constructive path. As Rep. Barney Frank remarked to E.J. Dionne, "We're willing to hold globalization hostage to equity." (Washington Post,11/14/97) With globalization now held hostage, Sierra Club and its allies may now have the chance to make progress toward a responsible trade policy. Even the Punditcocracy may come around to accept the wisdom of our strategy. Thomas Friedman lamented this week in the Op-Ed pages of the New York Times that Bill Clinton never took seriously the dark side of economic globalization. Now that the President has been taken down a notch, Friedman hopes that he will see the need for "a politics that can show people the power and potential of global integration, while taking seriously their needs for social [and environmental?] safety nets." (NYT, 11/13/97) Up to Top HOME | Email Signup | About Us | Contact Us | Terms of Use | © 2008 Sierra Club |
