Yielding To The Consensus (Again)
Posted on June 19th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
The reaction to the shocking revelation obvious truth that Obama is a more or less conventional free trader has been quite strong (see Mr. Robert’s article for a prime example of how “support” for Obama on the right is purely and understandably an expression of anti-Republican sentiment). Obama opposed CAFTA back when he was preparing to get labour endorsements, and bashed NAFTA when he was trying–and failing–to prevail in the Ohio primary, but he has been quite clear that he is well within the consensus that supports free trade. So in addition to condescending to small-town America, he is also uninterested in defending its interests. As with foreign policy, on the policies of immigration and trade where the bipartisan consensus is most wrong and most at odds with a majority of Americans, Obama sides with the political class (as well he might, since he is part of that class!). Goolsbee let slip privately to the Canadians what Obama is now saying publicly: it was all for show.
This does not surprise, though Jim Antle is correct that this is a case where Obama has pandered to the Democratic base and tried to have it both ways. Following up on my earlier observation about Obama’s domestic policies, I would add that this is the one exception where his formal position is to ”the right” of what he has sometimes said on the campaign trail, and it is yet another example of how Obama will not challenge the status quo in any meaningful way and has no interest in the sort of fundamental policy change that his partisans clearly want. If there are powerful interests that must be confronted, if great political risk is involved, Obama remains the guy who “won’t make no waves and won’t back no losers.” Essentially, this seems to confirm the criticism that Clinton and Edwards and a large part of the netroots made against him during the primaries: he won’t fight. This also drives home the point that I have tried to make before, which is that for all of his apparent sympathy for working- and middle-class voters, he does not propose to do anything for them with respect to trade or immigration or concerning the related problem of growing income inequality.
At the same time, it’s worth noting that putting Webb on the ticket at this point would make Webb doubly miserable. Not only is he not temperamentally suited for the VP nominee role (i.e., he is independent-minded and likes to say what he thinks), but since a significant part of his campaign in ‘06 was based in appeals to “economic fairness” and opposing at least some free trade deals it is difficult to see how he would serve effectively in an administration that was essentially yielding to neoliberalism*. If Webb thinks this is a Time to Fight, Obama gives the impression through his unwillingness to oppose entrenched interests that it is always time to yield.
*Referring here to the theory of liberalising international trade, not the domestic variety.
P.S. The Nation article quotes from David Sirota, who has been one of the progressives on Obama’s case for the longest time, and with this latest news his earlier critiques seem to have been vindicated. Back in December 2006, Sirota had Obama’s number on trade, and he said then:
But if this aversion to confronting power previews the rest of his campaign, there will indeed be a major opening for a real populist candidate to win the nomination and the presidency.
Perhaps there was such an opening briefly, and Edwards tried to exploit that unsuccessfully, but it was not to be. Sirota sums up well the problem with Obama with that phrase “aversion to confronting power.” If you want to understand how Obama will govern, just think about how he can avoid confrontation with entrenched interests and that is likely what he will do.
Filed under: economics, politics
4 Responses to “Yielding To The Consensus (Again)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The problem here is, of course, that neoliberals are right about trade. Obama had to make some noise to win his primary, which is something we all expect a politician to do, but you’re right that anyone who expected him to stay critical of neoliberal trade was nuts. Free trade is one of the single greatest methods of wealth-creation available.
Your issue with Obama is that he doesn’t listen to conservatives when they’re actually wrong about things, as you are about trade and immigration. You don’t bother to mention things like his position on corporate income taxes (simpler and lower) or that he appears to be open to class-based affirmative action because you aren’t interested in figuring out whether he listens to conservatives nearly so much as you want to beat him over the head for not agreeing specifically with you.
Obama is clearly willing to listen to conservative ideas, but that doesn’t mean he has to be willing to adopt the ones that aren’t good. You mentioned this yourself on “school choice” – he’s not going to support vouchers because vouchers are a stupid idea, not because he’s reflixively anti-conservative. And he’s not going to agree to your position on trade or immigration because those positions are bad for the country.
This insistence that Obama can’t possibly be listening to conservatives if he’s not agreeing with them is almost Broderian; it assumes conservatives and liberals are more or less equally right and that a real “moderate” would just split down the middle. It can’t possibly comprehend that someone could listen respectfully to conservatives and then come to the rather obvious conclusion that they have bad ideas.
I don’t assume that he takes the positions because he’s “reflexively anti-conservative.” Also, if he listens to opposing ideas and never concedes anything of substance, the exercise is pointless–it’s like ecumenism, dialogue for its own sake. It isn’t really a virtue to listen to the other side just to listen to them.
On the whole, free trade is the position most popular with movement conservatives and the GOP; I am a dissident from that position. The people who typically have the “bad ideas” on trade, as you put it, are Democrats. I am a dissident conservative because I generally think they have the better ideas on this question, or at least they are moving in the right direction. Whether or not he agrees with me is secondary–he does agree with the establishment on these issues and puts himself at odds with a majority of the country. No doubt people who take the establishment positions actually think that these positions are also good policy; they can’t be so cynical that they consciously adopt destructive policies just for the fun of it. The progressive and paleocon objection to this is that the establishment position on trade is, in fact, destructive and not desirable.
Obama wants to make it clear he disagrees with his party base rather than confronting the far more powerful corporate interests over trade. He can take the view that neoliberals are right on trade; it just so happens that this position is also the path of least resistance. The point is, surely, that Obama does not propose to change much of anything that would require him to confront entrenched interests, and his pattern of avoiding confrontation doesn’t bode well for what he does propose to change. Obama can take the position that neoliberalism is right, but then he represents continuity with the last two administrations and makes himself all but indistinguishable from McCain on this issue. He will fail to build up his support in the Midwest that would probably be his for the asking.
As for the wealth-creating power of neoliberalism, I wonder what Argentinians think about that right now. Perhaps the destruction of the Argentine economy is just another one of those inevitable blunders that come with a free trade-cum-austerity regime.
- It can’t possibly comprehend that someone could listen respectfully to conservatives and then come to the rather obvious conclusion that they have bad ideas. –
I think this quote sums up the frustration people have with Obamacons and Obama’s progressive supporters. He (supposedly) listens respectfully to conservatives, then ALWAYS comes to the conclusion that their ideas are wrong.
To the degree that he won’t even fight or stand up for traditional liberal positions on trade and labor, how could a conservative ever see this man fighting for an even moderately conservative policy? As Mr. Larison points out, immigration would be a perfect policy for Obama to exploit as a difference between him and McCain to gain favor amongst Midwestern-Appalachian voters…and would rally some Obamacons to his side…yet you know he wouldn’t touch that issue even if it might cost him the election.
I get this funny feeling that an Obama presidency is going to be one extremely overhyped and dramatically status quo affair.
“I get this funny feeling that an Obama presidency is going to be one extremely overhyped and dramatically status quo affair. ”
Ya think?
Like I’ve told my mother, an obama supporter, from the beginning: A smart person will have low expectations for him and hope to be surprised; a dumb person will have high expectations for him and will be shocked at the disappointment.
I think Obama’s realistic ambitions are to appoint a couple of non-monarchist judges to the SCOTUS, make a superficial gesture or two towards the protection of civil liberties and a return to the rule of law, get some form of universal healthcare passed, and capture/kill Osama Bin Laden, if he’s still in existence. If he succeeds on these counts, he will be heralded as a phenominal Democratic president, but in no way shape or form will he try to rock the system’s boat in any way remotely threatening to the corporatist elite.
Of course, the economy and possible collapse of hyper-leveraged post-modern inflationary central banking could throw a big monkey wrench in his plans, although he may be able to capture the narrative and consolidate a huge amount of political capital, publicly ostracizing entrenched interests and leading an enthralled congress to make big, wrongheaded changes in policy–making him an actual second coming of FDR and cementing his hero status in official history books.
We’re entering a period of great uncertainty, in which systematically unstable economic conditions could precipitate wide-spread political upheaval and the emergence of a new paradigm. Honestly, I think Obama is more dangerous to liberty in this regard, as he has the rhetorical ability to re-package authoritarianism and statism in a way that will be very palatable to most Americans.
But I’ve been convinced that it has to get much worse before the pendulum swings back–Modern Americans have a much higher tolerance for friendly despotism nowadays.