He's been brandishing this weapon as a cudgel hoping it could win him Ohio, etc. He's presuming that this is why he got the 2 point win in Michigan. Though he can win 10 more 2 point wins and it won't get him any closer to the nomination.
He is also playing some rather nasty games of trying to pressure super delegates. This pressure has not been welcome and he's actually employing the argument that somehow the votes of Southern states with large black populations don't matter so much.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/12/us/politics/bernie-sanders.html?_r=0
What he doesn't get is that it doesn't matter how many states you've won-though he's only won 7 to her 12-but how many delegates you have. The reforms that Jesse Jackson put in are why Southern states with lots of black folks matter more than they used to. Bernie is treading on some dangerous ground in suggesting these should be overturned because he doesn't do well with black voters.
https://twitter.com/StevePtweets/status/707421063404195841
On free trade he is, again, Trump's kindred spirit. I'm not saying that Trump and Sanders aren't very different but there are a number of similarities.
1. Both have a mostly white base
2. Both fulminate against money in politics and free trade.
3. Both are trying to screw the respective parties whose ticket they are running on.
4. A difference is that Trump is being very successful and Bernie is failing and won't win the nomination. March 15 is D-Day Hillary lovers.
But there is no denying that Trump and Bernie both hate free trade.
Trump is much more blatantly anti China in his rhetoric. But Bernie too, claims that extending most favored trading status to China was a huge mistake and that he will rip up this agreement on 'day one.'
Krugman has some thoughts on this demonization of trade
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/a-protectionist-moment/?module=BlogPost-ReadMore&version=Blog%20Main&action=Click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body#more-39637
As he points out, the advocates of free trade tend to wildly oversell the benefits of free trade deals to create jobs, but the opponents like Bernie and Trump tend to wildly oversell the ability of free trade deals to destroy jobs.
In truth, free trade deals are neither great job creators nor job destroyers. Noah Smith also weighs in on this.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-06/sanders-fails-to-recognize-that-some-trade-is-good
"Hey, Bernie Sanders, Trade Isn't All Bad"
"This is incredibly frustrating for people like me. I’ve long complained about the pro-free-trade consensus among economists. I’ve pointed out evidence that opening up trade with China has hurt American workers. I’ve argued against presenting a simplistic pro-free-trade view to the public, and against treating Econ 101 textbook theories as if they are the gospel truth."
"But instead of thoughtful moderation of free-trade policy, what Sanders is offering is an upending of the conventional wisdom. This is like finding out that reading in low light can be bad for your eyes, and reacting by giving up books. As usual, Sanders substitutes passion for thought and conviction for evidence. But I want to be clear that I surely don’t want my own cautions and caveats about free trade to become ammo for this kind of emotion-driven crusade."
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-06/sanders-fails-to-recognize-that-some-trade-is-good
I'm glad Noah Smith wrote this and clarified his position. It's a good description of the Bernie way passion and conviction rather than thought and evidence.
As Smith suggests, what's needed is moderation between the two extremes.
How should Hillary Clinton respond to Bernie's simplistic cudgel? Two ways:
1. First of all, amplify the point she's made previously. She''s no free trade dogmatist. She voted against CAFTA in the Senate, she didn't support every trade deal that George W. Bush put in front of her.
2. However, while she is not a free trade dogmatist, she's neither with Bernie and Donald Trump who are protectionist dogmatists.
Say what you want about NAFTA, but the barn door is already opened. To rework it now would be too late.
And you couldn't simply take away most favored nation status from China today. That would be real mud in the eyes of the Chinese, a large and rising country who we need to have decent relations with.
He is also playing some rather nasty games of trying to pressure super delegates. This pressure has not been welcome and he's actually employing the argument that somehow the votes of Southern states with large black populations don't matter so much.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/12/us/politics/bernie-sanders.html?_r=0
What he doesn't get is that it doesn't matter how many states you've won-though he's only won 7 to her 12-but how many delegates you have. The reforms that Jesse Jackson put in are why Southern states with lots of black folks matter more than they used to. Bernie is treading on some dangerous ground in suggesting these should be overturned because he doesn't do well with black voters.
https://twitter.com/StevePtweets/status/707421063404195841
On free trade he is, again, Trump's kindred spirit. I'm not saying that Trump and Sanders aren't very different but there are a number of similarities.
1. Both have a mostly white base
2. Both fulminate against money in politics and free trade.
3. Both are trying to screw the respective parties whose ticket they are running on.
4. A difference is that Trump is being very successful and Bernie is failing and won't win the nomination. March 15 is D-Day Hillary lovers.
But there is no denying that Trump and Bernie both hate free trade.
Trump is much more blatantly anti China in his rhetoric. But Bernie too, claims that extending most favored trading status to China was a huge mistake and that he will rip up this agreement on 'day one.'
Krugman has some thoughts on this demonization of trade
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/a-protectionist-moment/?module=BlogPost-ReadMore&version=Blog%20Main&action=Click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body#more-39637
As he points out, the advocates of free trade tend to wildly oversell the benefits of free trade deals to create jobs, but the opponents like Bernie and Trump tend to wildly oversell the ability of free trade deals to destroy jobs.
In truth, free trade deals are neither great job creators nor job destroyers. Noah Smith also weighs in on this.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-06/sanders-fails-to-recognize-that-some-trade-is-good
"Hey, Bernie Sanders, Trade Isn't All Bad"
"This is incredibly frustrating for people like me. I’ve long complained about the pro-free-trade consensus among economists. I’ve pointed out evidence that opening up trade with China has hurt American workers. I’ve argued against presenting a simplistic pro-free-trade view to the public, and against treating Econ 101 textbook theories as if they are the gospel truth."
"But instead of thoughtful moderation of free-trade policy, what Sanders is offering is an upending of the conventional wisdom. This is like finding out that reading in low light can be bad for your eyes, and reacting by giving up books. As usual, Sanders substitutes passion for thought and conviction for evidence. But I want to be clear that I surely don’t want my own cautions and caveats about free trade to become ammo for this kind of emotion-driven crusade."
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-06/sanders-fails-to-recognize-that-some-trade-is-good
I'm glad Noah Smith wrote this and clarified his position. It's a good description of the Bernie way passion and conviction rather than thought and evidence.
As Smith suggests, what's needed is moderation between the two extremes.
How should Hillary Clinton respond to Bernie's simplistic cudgel? Two ways:
1. First of all, amplify the point she's made previously. She''s no free trade dogmatist. She voted against CAFTA in the Senate, she didn't support every trade deal that George W. Bush put in front of her.
2. However, while she is not a free trade dogmatist, she's neither with Bernie and Donald Trump who are protectionist dogmatists.
Say what you want about NAFTA, but the barn door is already opened. To rework it now would be too late.
And you couldn't simply take away most favored nation status from China today. That would be real mud in the eyes of the Chinese, a large and rising country who we need to have decent relations with.
Which brings us to a reality of trade. It's not just about economics, it's also about geopolitical relations.
If Bernie-or Trump-simply come in and start ripping up agreements that would be a disaster for us internationally. We would lose a lot of allies that way about such high handed actions.
To recap:
1. Hillary isn't a free trade ideologue as she opposed CAFTA and other George W. Bush trade deals.
2. But Bernie's anti free trade ideology is no better than being totally a free trade ideologue.
3. Free trade deals aren't job killers though they can have negative effects on wages. But most of the negatives from trade with China are in the rare view mirror as Chinese wages are now going up.
4. A lot of the basis for such deals is geopolitical. It's to foster cooperation and goodwill between nations. A President Bernie or President Trump could lead to some real geopolitical blowback. Certainly ripping up mutually agreed deals with China would be a disaster.
5. If he says he's going to change trade deals like NAFTA, he ought to be pushed on what exactly he wants to change. Force him to do more than speak to convictions.
Plants headed to China are doing so for tax reasons, not trade ones. Deindustrialization started in the 70s because shutting plants down put gobs of cash in corporate pockets. Using a law designed for the liquor related firms closed by Prohibition, closing any plant now is fast cash from the government. When Bethlehem Steel closed it's Buffalo plant, they got almost 1 billion from the feds. This had and still has NOTHING to do with outsourcing or trade. With tariffs, it would not stop - plants move to get behind tariffs as we saw after WW II. Ford Motors became the biggest European corporation to get the European markets. Outsouring to return goods to the US is partly about no tariffs but would happen most likely anyway since it happened before NAFTA. Being anti free trade should rest on demanding global labor, environmental and other standards so that it is considerably more about uplifting all populations rather than exploiting them. Just saying it kills jobs misses the far bigger picture of domestic tax laws and incentives. The trade bills aren't the issue - it's those laws that need to be changed BY Congress which requires a far better Congress.
ReplyDeleteTK very much for your informative response. I know we talk on Twitter but I appreciate you leaving a comment here.
ReplyDeleteThis debate over trade needs to be made with facts like you've bought than just 'passion and conviction'