Topic: Government and Politics

Obama and Clinton Threaten to Bully Our Neighbors over Trade

When they weren’t jabbing at each other over health care and Iraq, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton spent a good chunk of their debate last night arguing over which of them is the strongest critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Both declared that they would withdraw the United States from the agreement if Canada and Mexico did not agree to inserting “enforceable” labor and environmental standards into the agreement.

Talk about a non-starter. It is unlikely that our two neighbors would agree to reopen a 14-year-old agreement that has worked well for all three nations. [You can read my assessment of NAFTA here.] In effect, Obama and Clinton will be asking our two neighbors to bend their national labor and environmental standards to the demands of the U.S. Congress under threat of trade sanctions. Where exactly is the upside for Canada and Mexico in such a request?

Of course, there is no upside. So the only motivation will be the threat that the United States will unilaterally withdraw from NAFTA. That, of course, would result in the re-imposition of tariffs on trade with our two most important trading partners. And because Mexican tariffs on imports from the rest of the world are significantly higher than U.S. tariffs, U.S. exporters to Mexico would face a much steeper tariff increase than Mexican exporters to the United States. By withdrawing us from NAFTA, the Democrats would transform what has truly become a “level playing field” of zero tariffs into one tilted against U.S. exporters.

And even if the U.S. government were able to demand that Mexico impose new and tougher environmental and labor restrictions on its producers, there is little reason to believe that goods now made in Mexico would be soon be produced in Youngstown, Ohio, and elsewhere in the United States. The far more likely scenario is that producers in Mexico would shift production to China, Vietnam, and other lower-cost producers.

Finally, consider the foreign policy implications of threatening to withdraw from NAFTA. The Democratic candidates have been critical of the Bush administration for its checkered record of winning friends abroad. But have the Clinton and Obama campaigns considered how our friends in Canada and Mexico will react to the heavy-handed demand that they re-write their domestic labor and environmental laws under threat of face tariff retaliation from Uncle Sam?

This would confirm the worst fears of our closest neighbors.

Cato Scholar Comments on Breakup between Bush, U.S.

A lot of my colleagues here were really excited when The Onion, to my mind America’s premier fake news source, cited the work of our colleague Dr. Adam Stogsdill recently. But now Brian Whitaker has also made it onto The Onion’s pages to comment on another important story.

WASHINGTON—Amid allegations that his thoughtless and insensitive decisions have damaged his relationship with the nation, President George W. Bush vowed Monday that he would, starting now, “make everything better.”

“This time I’m serious,” Bush said. “I am ready to make a fresh start if we can just put the past behind us. I promise.”

[…]

Despite Bush’s seemingly conciliatory stance, public response to Bush’s promises has been frosty at best. Cato Institute policy scholar Brian Whitaker echoed the sentiments of many Americans, calling Bush’s recent overtures “too little, too late.”

“We want to believe that he’s finally going to be the president we always wanted, but we’ve given him so many chances,” Whitaker said. “I don’t think we can handle another disappointment. Maybe it’s time to realize that President Bush will never be the head of state we need him to be.”

“Then again, maybe our expectations are unfair,” Whitaker added. “He seemed so sincere this time. He wouldn’t abuse his executive powers if he didn’t care about us, right?”

Whitaker predicted that the nation will likely move forward and try to forget Bush, though it may be difficult for Americans to ever trust a president again. He said the current crop of presidential contenders offers little in the way of an alternative to Bush, but maintained that “at least Barack Obama listens to us.”

Wow, congrats, Brian. A lot of folks in the building are bound to be pretty jealous today.

The Politics of Freedom: Libertarianism with Sizzle

Brian Doherty, the author of the magisterial Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement, has some generous things to say about my new book The Politics of Freedom in Sunday’s New York Post. I especially like the subtitle in the reason.com version: “sells the libertarian message with sizzle.”

Brian discusses my claims about the extent of libertarianism among American voters and writes:

Whatever the near-term prospects for libertarian political victories, The Politics of Freedom reminds you of the service libertarians provide to public discourse: They can point out the hypocrisy, power grabs, hubris and counterproductive folly issuing from Washington under either political brand name since they are beholden to neither. …

No major political party has fully embraced the implications of the proper role of government that follow from Boaz’s simple limited-government vision. But when expressed that plainly, it’s a moral vision many Americans can cheer.

The Politics of Freedom is available at all fine bookstores, at Amazon, and from the Cato Institute.

Demander-in-Chief

Bill Kristol’s column in yesterday’s New York Times contained an interesting, if disconcerting, quote from Michelle Obama:

Barack Obama … is going to demand that you shed your cynicism… That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

The President of the United States is the employee of the American people. He is not there to make demands of people. If I want to sit on my couch for the rest of my life eating Doritos and watching trashy television – unengaged, uninformed and uninvolved – that’s my prerogative.

(Hat tip: our beloved founder, Ed Crane).

Fleecing Europe’s Taxpayers

Congress certainly has its share of crooks, but Members of the European Parliament make American lawmakers look like amateurs when it comes to pilfering tax monies for private gain. The U.K.-based Sun reports on the latest scandal:

Crooked MEPs are trousering cash meant for workers’ wages, it was revealed yesterday. Some hire “ghost” staff — then claim thousands of pounds from the £100million annual allowance. Others recycle the handout by employing unqualified relatives, a bombshell report on MEPs’ expenses found. In many cases the whole £125,000 allowance is paid to just one person on the staff. One assistant received a “Christmas bonus” worth 19 times their monthly salary. Taxpayers’ money is also being diverted to party funds, with the internal probe describing the corruption as “massive and widespread”.

Brussels had wanted to cover up the abuse — but EU fraudbusters have demanded a copy of the report. Last night Lib Dem MEP Chris Davies — one of a handful of people who have seen the audit — called it “dynamite”. He said: “The allegations should lead to the imprisonment of a number of MEPs. It’s embezzlement and fraud on a massive, massive scale.”

Lilla on Heilbrunn on the Neocons

Mark Lilla has a hot-and-cold review of Jacob Heilbrunn’s book They Knew They Were Right in the New Republic. Lilla, a former editor of The Public Interest, hilariously describes his view that Commentary was “the great simplifier–everything always came down to holding the line and proving your manliness. The articles made sense only if you imagined the authors screaming at the top of their lungs.” But he has some scathing remarks for the unrepentant neocons of today:

Poor Iraq! And poor America! The dénouement we all know, but Heilbrunn’s book, for all its superficiality, still shows how depressingly predictable it all was. By leaving the reality-based community and creating their own Team-B approach to every issue–and stocking that team with reliable soldiers who happened not to know what the hell they were talking about (trivia question: who was Laurie Mylroie?)–the neoconservatives had become the very last people you’d want leading you to war. They knew how everything connected but not how anything worked–the Army, the United Nations, the Sunni-Shiite quarrel, the balance of power, human culture in the face of occupation and humiliation. And what they used to know about the unintended consequences of political action they seem to have willfully forgotten. Reactionaries are like that–because in the end, contrary to Heilbrunn’s title, they really don’t care whether they are right. What they care most about is reconfirming their picture of the world.

Whole thing’s worth a read.

Right-Wing Glasnost on Foreign Policy?

Ryan Lizza, in a profile of John McCain in the New Yorker, describes the dispute between factions on the Right, with Newt Gingrich and Co. arguing that in order to win, conservatives must jettison conservative economic principles, and Grover Norquist’s faction arguing that conservative economic principles are the core of conservatism. Here’s Lizza describing Norquist’s view:

In a forthcoming book, “Leave Us Alone,” he describes the Republican Party as little more than a collection of interest groups—such as anti-tax activists, gun-rights advocates, and homeschoolers—that, if they are carefully tended, will grow into a “supermajority.” The merits of his argument aside, Norquist’s description of the conservative coalition is notable for what it leaves out—voters whose overriding concern is national security. That exclusion seems to be a trend on the small-government right. Not long ago, I spoke with Mallory Factor, a Republican fund-raiser and the co-organizer of a monthly meeting for conservative thinkers and activists in New York. When I mentioned that McCain’s aides plan to use the Iraq war to unite the right, he said, “That’s not the glue that keeps conservatives together. There is an enormous amount of frustration over the war on a number of grounds, from the cost, to the way the war has been fought, to what the outcome is. One of the things that I’ve talked about in our group is that we’re using the finest military in the world as an N.G.O. I mean, we’re talking about nation-building, not fighting a war. Is that the proper use of our military?”

Factor has reason to be concerned. In a recent Foreign Affairs article, McCain called for the kind of costly nation-building capacity that makes libertarians shudder, arguing that the United States should “energize and expand our postconflict reconstruction capabilities” and create a “deployable police force” that would prop up collapsing states. Echoing Norquist’s book, Factor insisted that the war in Iraq is not a unifying issue for the right. He told me, “The bottom line is that to the base of the Party the war isn’t Communism—to the Republican Party under Ronald Reagan, Communism was a rallying point. This is not like that.

Lizza goes on to describe how all of the non-Norquist factions of conservatism have essentially made their peace with the welfare-warfare state:

Gingrich, Gerson, and Frum all reject the anti-government ethos that has come to define conservatism. Gingrich calls for managerial competence in government. Gerson asks for expanded programs to fight poverty at home and to combat AIDS abroad. Frum recommends making peace with the realities of the welfare state.

For whatever it’s worth, down here in the policy trenches, it doesn’t feel too much like Mallory Factor’s description of a conservative reunion with reality on foreign policy is accurate. But here’s hoping it is.