Telling people what they don't want to hear
I have to say that one of the attributes I respect most in the politicians that I like, is an ability to tell constituents what they do not want to hear.
This summer I am working for my district's congresswoman, a liberal democrat. I think she is a good congresswoman. She definitely has myvote come next year. But she is anti-free trade. Quite simply, she has voted against NAFTA and CAFTA. Now I know she is a smart lady and I am sure she knows that there exists an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows how amazing free-trade can be. But she voted against it anyway.
When I have complained about this to friends and family, they have excused it as her merely representing her constituency; and they are right, that is all she is doing. There are many farmers and union laborers in her district who view free trade as a threat to their jobs and way of life. But as a whole, Connecticut and even the 3rd Congressional District would be better off with a passed NAFTA and CAFTA.
Anyways, this made me think of my favorite politician: Robert Kennedy. I think one of the things that I admire most about his legacy was his willingness to engage voters that he disagreed with. During his ill-fated 1968 Presidential Campaign RFK went to dozens of college campuses and essentially told radical students two things: I am against the Vietnam war and I am even more against draft deferrals for wealthy children. Now the second point did not yield any cheers, in fact it lead to booing on a number of occasions, he was right and voters came to respect him for that.
Taking an unpopular stand on a controversial issue is always risky. It requires a politician to have a charisma and sincerity that very few have. Furthermore, bold decisions rarely achieve popularity in their time. Abraham Lincoln tirelessly fought an unpopular war to retain the Union, Woodrow Wilson's push for worldwide democracy fell on deaf ears, and Harry Truman's honest and no nonsense stand on issues ranging from military desegregation and the Korean War only lead to one of the great re-election campaigns of all time. However time has worn well on all of these once unpopular decisions. Today members on both sides of the aisle are never afraid to quote any of those presidents.
Of course, even Lincoln practiced politics, slowly developing the rationale of the war as it progressed. So in no way do I expect every politician to risk everything for something as geeky as free-trade. Free trade is very different than war or significant social issues. It requires one to essentially tell the soon to be unemployed that their struggle is worth it for the rest of the state or district. But protectionist policies are undeniably destructive. They limit the creation of future, higher paying jobs. Also, they cause prices of goods to remain high. Protecting agriculture holds up the prices of all the vegetables and fruits we eat. Saving a couple hundred dollars a year on food can be huge for someone just barely scraping by, but politically it is a lot easier to pander to those with the most at stake.
I guess my point is that my congresswoman has every right to vote the way she does but she should not be excused from the decisions she makes merely because she does not have the balls to tell her constituents what is correct and true.
Hoping to keep my job,
Mr. Alec
posted by Alec Brandon @ 12:37 AM
10 comments
10 Comments:
I tried to read your most recent blog, I really did; however I could not stomach your shining endorsement of free trade. I could be mistaken, but your writing emanated a, how can I say, stench of pro-free trade rhetoric.
In theory, “free trade” sounds most excellent; a globalizing force like no other. Yet in today’s implementation, it is nothing but the love child of white privilege, and another facet by which MNC’s (mostly controlled by wealthy, white men) manipulate the worth of goods and services. Chomsky is most definitely right when he refers to it as an “investor-rights agreement.” Free trade is anything but free.
Well I was trying to avoid having to provide the rationale for free trade and discussing the politics of a situation.
Anyways, heres the one paragraph justification for free-trade:
It provides more, cheaper goods to the United States. That in turn leads to more higher paying jobs in the United States (think: introduction of the PC made the cost of information and organization plummet, many secretaries, librarians, typists, etc lost their jobs, but on the other hand, companies were able to put money elsewhere. on top of that an entire industry of IT management was created, that doesn't seem too shabby). Free trade benefits our trade partners, now when I say this, I am referring to total free trade, including repealing of Western Nations atrocious farming tarrifs (something I abhor). It benefits them because it allows them to get goods they otherwise couldn't, or if they could, they would do so expensively. Furthermore, it encourages strong education systems, governmental transparency, and political freedoms that in tandem can spawn first-world countries and higher qualities of life. For examples look no further than Taiwan, Chile, India, South Korea, and China. The billions of people who have made real progress in the quality of their lives with things like running water, an education, food, and a roof over there head are that way because of free-trade and its consequences. No matter how much good will Noam Chompsky has, no policy Chompsky has ever encouraged has ever been that effective this fast.
Honestly, free trade has probably done more for the welfare of poor countries in the last 10 years than all the foreign aid and charity work ever provided ever.
That is why I have such a shining endorsment of free trade. That is why I took it for granted that free trade was a good thing.
But I would challenge our commentor to provide any proven alternative. Any alternative that provides the real returns that freetrade has and can if it is extended to agricultural exports.
Goodwill and singalongs is really crappy at feeding people. Free-trade is not.
-Mr. Alec
Alright, I have to give one last arguement, that is a little more broad.
This notion that free trade only benefits a certain, well-off group is kind of funny. It is almost precisely the reason Marx thought democracy would fail. He contended that the workers would revolt from the bourgeious benefitting from all there work. The reason Marx is not worshipped today is because his economics was wrong. Economic growth ended up benefitting much more than just the bourgious. Economies stabilized and got people what they wanted, a pretty good metric of how effective a policy is.
I think your arguement is almost the same, that only white men who invest are benefitting from free-trade (just as the bourgious only benefitted from capitalism). Admitidally rich white men are probably doing the best because of free-trade. But there are real perks to the not-white people of the world and the US. Being able to buy cheaper food and clothing in the US is good and something that benefits everyone.
Also, cross-apply everything I said earlier about how this has helped foreign countries that were basket-cases 10 years ago.
This is why Marx was wrong and why you are wrong. Free-trade will and has benefit all, just as capitalism does.
Wow, that was pretty de facto for someone who loves to equivocate as much as I do.
Bedtime.
-Mr. Alec
Oh god. That sounds like a horrid paragraph out of an intro to IR class, Alec.
For failures - look no further than the entire African continent.
It's interesting that in your "main article" on free trade, I don't know what to call it. Your "initial blog," if I may, you offer one sentence of, dare I say, pity to the "soon to be unemployed worker.” It appears that you have never been on the end of this stick – being told that company “x” is leaving the country, that you no longer have a job, but it’s for the good of those around you. Products will be cheapter, everything and everyone will be okay - except for you, now unemployed and untrained for other jobs in this modern world of outsourcing.
You may have your political views; however, personal experiences - certainly not mine - can change that. Imagine yourself as one of countless unemployeed American's, one whos job was sent to Taiwan, Mexico, etc.... Perhaps then you will change your mind.
Also, let us not forget that one of the main reasons NAFTA passed was that it was supposed to decrease illegal immigration. Mexico, and Mexican's as a whole, were supposed to become wealthier. Tijuana and Monterrey are the same as today as they were alomst 12 years ago. Nothing has changed. In that sense, NAFTA in particular is a failure.
I'm sorry if it seems that I'm jumping around. This "comment box" is far too tiny to organize my thoughts.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Oh god...in the second response...you sound exactly like Ayn Rand. Awh, It's absolutely disgusting. I feel dirty now. Cheers.
- I.P.
Oddly enough I've never read any Ayn Rand or taken any IR classes. Anyways:
OK, now the issue of being on the wrong end of the stick, this is a lengthy and complex issue. But essentially you have the choice of protecting jobs and sacrificing much or allowing the free flow of jobs and the social and economic mobility that follows from that. Compare France to the US. For a better discussion on this, check out these two blog entries:
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/07/comment_on_immi.html
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/07/islamist_violen.html
Second, my point was that although losing a job is never something easy or fun, for the government to protect it sacrifices alot from everyone else in the country. Many farmers have not turned a profit for 70 years, is this good? Especially when it ends up only hurting your precious third-world citizens.
Last, I have made this point over and over, is that if losing a job is so traumatizing then the govenrment ought to assist. But do so in an efficient manner. Examples include vouchers for job retraining, unemployment pay, and what Thomas Friedman and some Yale economist has been talking about for a couple years: providing a system of livelihood insurance. The holy grail of market solutions...my mouth is just watering thinking about it.
By the way, I was going to sleep, but I got caught up with the amazingness that is: googletalk!
www.google.com/talk
check it out.
-Mr. Alec
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
New policy, I delete spam comments.
Go away.
-Mr. Alec
This comment and reply from me was posted on the wrong comment area, here it is:
Anonymous said...
The world according to Alec Brandon:
"I guess my point is that my congresswoman has every right to vote the way she does but she should not be excused from the decisions she makes merely because she does not have the balls to tell her constituents what is correct and true."
I am sure even Alec will find it in his heart to forgive the congresswoman for not having "the balls". But I wonder if Alec has the balls to live in a world in which things are not "true and correct". It's more work, getting your hands dirty with all that gray sticky stuff.
7:35 AM
-----------
Mr. Alec said...
Anonymous poster,
I do have the balls to live in an imperfect world.
I realize that there is plenty of grey and that politicians do what politicians gotta do sometimes.
However, if I am talking with like minded people, who whole-heartedly agree that free-trade can be so beneficial, then I don't think the, "well she has to pander to some of her constituency" excuse should cut it.
-Mr. Alec
7:51 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home