ABC's Cokie Roberts: Dems' "fair trade" advocacy puts party "on the wrong side of history"
On the January 8 broadcast of National Public Radio's Morning Edition, ABC News Washington correspondent Cokie Roberts asserted that if Democrats pursue "fair trade" policies instead of "free trade" policies, they will be "essentially on the wrong side of history with globalization." Roberts made the assertion in response to host Steve Inskeep's request that she comment on his interview with Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH).
Brown had addressed precisely the question of "history," saying that "mainstream Democrats" have "evolved" from the early 1990s, when President Clinton pushed for congressional approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Brown said: "[T]here has been an evolution among almost all Democrats that these trade agreements simply need to be constructed in a different way for fair trade, not for free trade."
Roberts did not address the specific elements Brown laid out as part of a "fair trade" policy: ensuring compliance with environmental and labor standards. Rather, she simply responded to Inskeep's characterization of Brown's position as "cracking down on free trade." Roberts warned that opposition to free trade would be a "long-term loser" for Democrats and that Democrats "have to be very careful here, and there's a lot of division among Democrats on this issue."
From the January 8 broadcast of NPR's Morning Edition:
INSKEEP: Is there a danger of this being any kind of distraction for Democrats because you still do have what we could call the Bill Clinton wing of the Democratic Party, which, for example, pushed for the NAFTA free trade agreement?
BROWN: That was 15 years ago. The so-called Bill Clinton wing of the Democratic Party has evolved into the mainstream Democrats, which we are, that say that we need trade agreements with environmental and labor standards. There has been an evolution since China in the late '90s, there has been an evolution among almost all Democrats that these trade agreements simply need to be constructed in a different way for fair trade, not for free trade.
[...]
INSKEEP: We interviewed Senator Brown to begin our series on what Democrats stand for as they take over Congress, and NPR news analyst Cokie Roberts has been listening in. Cokie, is the notion of cracking down on free trade a winning issue for Democrats?
ROBERTS: It is in some states and in some districts, but it's a long-term loser. It puts them essentially on the wrong side of history with globalization. And even though labor unions often lose in trade agreements, consumers gain. And so the Democrats have to be very careful here, and there's a lot of division among Democrats on this issue.
INSKEEP: OK, Cokie, thanks very much. We'll continue watching that issue and others.
it's all about being on the winning side. Screw the people.
this so-called history of globalization has been raping the planet, indenturing whole communities of people, and benefitting only a few...
even though labor unions often lose in trade agreements, consumers gain
Notably left out of this formulation are the actual workers, who are the main losers. Labor unions per se may still be able to pay their executives...
Of course, if enough workers are impoverished, there won't be enough "consumers" to support the economy. Cokie, on the other hand, will always be able to support her namesake habit by churning out boilerplate spin like she does.
mainstream consumers do lose out when corporations win, just not as quickly as workers. Consider the work of Nader in that field. Still, the wage workers are the worst off.
Largely because I have a UNION job. Your post seems to make it look like when unions are hurt it isnt the workers that the union represents that arent being hurt, or that unions are just beauracracies and workers are somehow not part of their equation. When Unions are hurt WORKERS are hurt.
I always thought she was a joke.
Now I know it.
You'll notice that Brown never referred to NAFTA or CAFTA as "free trade agreements" but rather simply "trade agreements". He is more accurate in his terminolgy than Inskeep or Roberts. NAFTA and CAFTA, in addition to being bad for workers, isn't especially free trade despite the fact that it says "free trade" in their titles. Check out "The Conservative Nanny State" by Dean Baker. He describes it better than I can.
[link to www.conservativenannystate.org]
it takes a lot of money to pull your face back that tight.
I thought NAFTA sounded like a good thing especially considering I lived in Texas at the time. Yet, history has proven so-called "free trade" does come with a price.
I think Cokie is wrong but as a previous poster mentioned, she wants to be on the "winning side," whatever that means to her.
Brilliant.....only in the land of the reich-winger.
Sounds like she's repeating a tired Sean Insanity talking point about the Dems. And the conservative noise machine continues (sigh...)
Not all free trade is fair.
Consider China.
Until China's currency has to face the music in the currency market, there will be no fair trade between us and China, since China has arbitrarily valued its currency on par with the US dollar.
And after the USA is a third world service economy, then and only then will China make a move toward allowing its currency global market scrutiny.
So it’s either compel China to release its currency “into the wild” or suffer our inevitable fate as a former world power.
As a reporter/ analyst Cokie is a joke. As a spokeswoman for Mammon Cokie is tops !
ABC, NPR...who else's payroll is she on?
I don't think so. Dems have promoted labor issues very successfully for 100+ years. Workers are also consumers. Will they still consume when their wages go down the drain?
the worker's we're talking about are the wage workers. The rest of the consumers are the middle class. They'll still buy. And everyone will always need food, their lives will just get even more crappy. I'm sure this policy makes no sense on some level, but I'm too lazy to think about that, right now.
Someone says someone else is on the "wrong side of history," what they are trying to do is get their own slanted perspective down as the first official version. Whatever. History has a funny habit of working itself out. I doubt that anyone thought that Napoleon was on the wrong side of history in 1804. All Cokie is doing is embracing the current, fleeting, and illusory "power and glory" of neo-con, right-wing ideology.
...on the ABC Sunday morning show that Ned Lamont's election in the CT primary spelled doom for the Democratic party ( and we all see how accurate that prophesy was).
Of course, this because Lamont's anti-war platform was deemed "extremist" while Lieberman's pro-war platform was deemed "pro-American."
In other words, Cokie Roberts not only thinks like a neo-con, her inability to accurately evaluate and predict things is also neo-conesque.
Cokie Roberts used to do a lot of commentary on NPR and somehow passed herself off as "liberal" or at least "objective", even though she was consistently hostile to anything progressive. I really started paying attention after hearing her post-debate remarks about Geraldine Ferraro, who Cokie noted had "clearly lost" the debate with Bush I. What??!!!! Cokie obviously had listened to a different debate than I had, or had her filters firmly in place. I've rarely heard a word from her since then that didn't seriously tick me off.
That is TINA, there is no alternative. This is the best way for them to sell investors bills of rights as free trade, because the evidence is that the majority of people lose. Nafta was not only bad for American workers but Mexican workers as well. The industrial wage fell by about 25% in Mexico after NAFTA. Whenever they need to sell the protection of privelege and the idea that the few need some more breaks at the expense of the many, its crucial to include TINA.