SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (25586)7/31/2006 9:32:15 AM
From: Lane3  Respond to of 541851
 
A Rallying Cry for Democratic Populism

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Monday, July 31, 2006; Page A13

Take This Job and Ship It:

How Corporate Greed and
Brain Dead Politics Are
Selling Out America

Sen. Byron L. Dorgan

Thomas Dunne Books, 288 pp., $24.95

What would happen if the opposition party actually chose to oppose the one in power? Not just on the margins, but by rejecting outright the majority party's fundamental beliefs on trade and tax policy?

Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) urges Democrats to take on Republicans in just that way in his new book, "Take This Job and Ship It: How Corporate Greed and Brain Dead Politics Are Selling Out America." He makes a politically compelling -- if economically questionable -- case.

Dorgan, a master of partisan rhetoric, puts his debating skills to good use in spinning out anecdotes that make free trade and corporate tax breaks seem cruel to the average citizen. He clearly hopes to instruct fellow Democrats how to ride a populist wave if one were ever to form.

Democrats are deeply divided, of course, about whether to adopt his advice. Many prefer pro-business, pro-trade positions that distinguish them a little from the GOP, but not a lot. A growing number of others, however, are in Dorgan's radical camp. They think the way to finally win is to just say "No."

Depending on how low President Bush's job-approval ratings go, Dorgan might be on to something. His book is worth reading if only to see in detail how a reenergized Democratic Party might act.

Its first tenet would be to buck the economic consensus about the wisdom and inevitability of globalization. Dorgan disparages the elites' blind faith in markets to produce positive financial results. Instead, he concentrates on the human toll that cheap labor has exacted on low- and middle-income families.

He describes well the personal hardship felt by loyal workers when factories for such iconic U.S. products as Fig Newtons, Levi's jeans and Radio Flyer wagons moved abroad. After Huffy bikes closed its plant in Celina, Ohio, Dorgan writes, employees left shoes in empty parking spaces to deliver the message, "You can move our jobs to China, but you're not going to be able to fill our shoes."

The senator does more than tug the heartstrings. He recommends a litany of solutions, including repealing a tax break that encourages the outsourcing of jobs overseas, prohibiting imports from countries that abuse their workers and setting a ceiling on our trade deficits.

He would stop approving free-trade agreements of the kind that have flowed through Congress in recent years. Democratic and Republican administrations alike have embraced such pacts (NAFTA for North America and CAFTA for Central America, for example) as the only way for the United States to prosper over the long run in an interdependent international economy.

Dorgan rejects that thinking as injurious to American workers, the people whose well-being, he says, should be the focus of federal policy. The title of his final chapter says it all: "Flat World? No, Flat Wrong!"

To Dorgan, big corporations are the villains and labor unions the saviors. "I understand that big is not always bad, and small is not always beautiful," he writes. But, he adds: "If the shoe fits, wear it. And it damn well better be American-made."

He blames many of the nation's woes on the avarice of large multinational companies -- a tack that few politicians, dependent on campaign contributions, are willing to take these days. He also bashes lobbyists, which is for him a somewhat hollow declaration. His wife, Kimberly Olson Dorgan, is the chief lobbyist for the American Council of Life Insurers.

Dorgan heaps particular scorn on pharmaceutical and oil companies. He accuses drugmakers, for instance, of bending the country's laws in ways that hurt consumers and bloat their bottom lines. In response, he would repeal laws that bar the government from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies for lower prices and that prohibit the importation of less-expensive prescription drugs from countries such as Canada.

These are not the freshest of ideas, particularly coming from a liberal Democrat. But Dorgan delivers them with real sting. He claims, for example, that Tommy G. Thompson, then-secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, told him privately that Dorgan was "right" to favor allowing prescription drugs to cross into this country -- a position at odds with that of Thompson's boss at the time, President Bush.

Dorgan also sounds what has become a major rallying cry for the political left -- a full-throated assault on the nation's largest retailer. "Wal-Mart," he writes, "is the poster child for what has gone so terribly wrong in this global economy." He complains that the company "trades American jobs for cheap foreign labor" and "pushes wages down here in the United States."

"Take This Job and Ship It" is Dorgan's effort to spread that kind of populism beyond his prairie home.

Birnbaum covers lobbying and politics for The Washington Post.



To: Lane3 who wrote (25586)7/31/2006 4:23:11 PM
From: JohnM  Respond to of 541851
 
I remembered where I saw the bit about disputed territory.

We are well into stuff I know little about but it's not a large leap to imagine the Golan Heights being wrapped into such negotiations.



To: Lane3 who wrote (25586)8/1/2006 9:16:58 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 541851
 
Here's another piece that addresses disputed Lebanese territory. I really doubt there is any.

>>Israel withdrew from every square meter of Lebanese territory six years ago.<<

Actually, the Middle East Is Our Crisis Too
The war is now part of the global conflict between the U.S. and radical Islam
TIME MAGAZINE
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Something radically new is emerging in the Middle East: the century-old Arab-Israeli dispute has been transmuted from a nationalist to a religious war. And as a result, the Arab-Israeli wars are now merging into the global conflict between radical Islam and the West.

The transformation was swift in coming. Hamas' electoral landslide in Palestine just six months ago marked the political death of Yasser Arafat and the secular, vaguely socialist and entirely nationalist movement he represented. Hamas is fighting not to create a 23rd Arab state but, as its charter explains, to recover "an Islamic Waqf." Meaning? Territory claimed under the Islamic precept that "any land the Muslims have conquered by force ... during the times of [Islamic] conquests" more than a millennium ago belongs to Muslims forever because "the Muslims consecrated these lands to Muslim generations until the Day of Judgment."

In the first period of the Arab-Israeli dispute, Israel was at war with pan-Arabism, the idea of essential Arab unity across states and the rejection of any non-Arab state in their region. Pan-Arabism was humiliated by Israel's six-day victory in the 1967 war. The subsequent death of Egyptian President Nasser, who instigated that disaster, accelerated pan-Arabism's decline. Its final collapse occurred when its last great proponent, Saddam Hussein, was swept away in 2003. The successor Arab rulers no longer dream of a single Arab state and have grudgingly come to accept a small Jewish state in part of Palestine. Hence the peace treaties that Egypt and Jordan signed with Israel.

As pan-Arabism declined, pan-Islamism rose in its place. Hence Islamist Hizballah--client of Islamist Iran, ally of Islamist Hamas--provokes a war with Israel. Hizballah's motivation has nothing to do with Arab nationalism. Israel withdrew from every square meter of Lebanese territory six years ago. But legal obligation means nothing to Hizballah. Like Hamas and Iran, Hizballah views the destruction of Israel as a religious obligation.

Moreover, Hizballah times its attack on Israel to suit the needs of its Iranian patron, about to be subject to sanctions by the West for its nuclear ambitions. Those ambitions, in turn, are meant to serve Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's even larger Islamist vision of a cataclysmic showdown with the infidel West as a harbinger of the return of the 12th Imam and the End of Days.

But it gets more complicated still. The Iran-Hizballah-Hamas axis is not the only church of Islamism. Enter Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's No. 2, rushing to keep up with the mob, the mob that is now scandalously led by Persian and Shi'ite Iran. On behalf of Sunni and Arab al-Qaeda--just yesterday the champion of all things radically Muslim and anti-Western--al-Zawahiri last week issued a call for all Muslims to rise up against Israel.

Now Palestine was never at the top of al-Qaeda's list of grievances. In al-Qaeda's 1998 declaration of war on the U.S., Palestine is a distant third. But with Iran, through Hamas and Hizballah, having seized leadership of the jihad against the Jews, al-Qaeda could not stand by and allow its Islamist primacy to be eclipsed by the mullahs of Tehran.

To Western eyes, the spectacle is bizarre, not seen since the Catholic Church six centuries ago sported rival Popes, one in Rome, one in Avignon. Our only near contemporary experience of dueling churches occurred in the 1960s and '70s, when the Soviet Union and China competed for the title of most authentic communist and for the allegiance of client states and guerrilla groups around the world. On 9/11, al-Qaeda bestrode the world of radical Islam. Al-Zawahiri simply had to show up at the scene of the latest Arab-Israeli fighting lest Iran usurp al-Qaeda's hard-earned mantle.

For all their medieval trappings, these two sources of Islamic fervor now vying for possession of the newly transmuted Arab-Israeli dispute confirm the Bush Administration's view that, after a holiday from history in the 1990s, the global ideological struggles of the 20th century have been rejoined with a change only in the cast. In place of the ersatz Western religions of fascism and communism, radical Islam, bastard child of a real and great religion, has arisen. Led by two rival Vaticans, one in Tehran and the other cavebound on the Afghan-Pakistani border, it raises the banner of a militant religion that will not rest until, as al-Zawahiri pledged, Islam has retaken every piece of Waqf "from Spain to Iraq."

Yes, Spain--conquered by Islam in the 8th century, lost to Christianity in 1492. That's a long way from Haifa, from Lebanon, from Baghdad and even from Mecca. It's an even longer way from rationality, which is why the struggle against it will be long and painful, and enduringly surreal.