President NAFTA Backs President Shafta
Saturday 11 December 2010
by: Jeff Cohen, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed
It was a stunning spectacle yesterday when former President Clinton took the podium from President Obama in the White House briefing room to help shove the Obama-GOP tax deal down the throats of Democratic activists and Congress members.
It was a fitting spectacle too (carried live on CNN) - since Bill Clinton paved the way in teaching how a Democratic president can win battles through the votes NOT of his own party but of the Republicans.
Remember NAFTA, the trade deal loved by big business and Republicans - and opposed by Democratic constituencies like unions, environmentalists and consumer advocates? President Clinton passed NAFTA in 1993 with the votes of nearly 80 percent of GOP senators and almost 70 percent of House Republicans. Meanwhile, House Democrats opposed NAFTA by a ratio of more than 3 to 2.
More than a year ago, I warned that Obama would follow Clinton's lead in winning some of his biggest fights by allying with the GOP against his own base.
Following much White House lecturing and name-calling ("the professional left," "f**king retarded") aimed at the activists who put him in the Oval Office, Obama shafted his base this week and broke another promise, this time on tax breaks for the rich.
Look for another Obama/GOP alliance if Democrats in Congress find their voices over Obama's bloody, costly, unwinnable folly in Afghanistan.
These kinds of deals can become habit forming. After NAFTA, Clinton went on to other bipartisan deals - cutting welfare for the poor while extending welfare to the media conglomerates in 1996, and concluding his tenure with deregulatory giveaways to the investment banks that led directly to the financial meltdown of 2008.
And Obama seems to have less backbone and fewer firm principles than even Bill Clinton - even more prone to a Stockholm Syndrome-like tendency to cozy up to his Republican batterers.
So it was quite a scene yesterday, with voices on CNN almost giddy that the gray ghost of pro-corporate "bipartisan compromise" was back at the White House.
Meanwhile, independent Bernie Sanders was electrifying much of the country by railing for eight and a half hours in the Senate against the wealthy getting billions in tax breaks while deficit-hawks take aim at Social Security and other vital programs.
I'm sure I wasn't the only American fantasizing that one day a fighting independent like Bernie would occupy the White House.
Instead, with Obama, we seem to be getting the best Republican president since ... well ... since Clinton.
This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.
Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
None would Call, RENEGE.
Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:00 — Vic Anderson (not verified)None would Call, RENEGE.
One of the key differences
Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:39 — B (not verified)One of the key differences is that Clinton at least ran as Republican-lite in the primaries. We got pretty much what I expected from his presidency.
One of the stark memories from his administration was picking up a newspaper the day after the welfare cuts passed. The headline article talked about how cutting welfare saved the country $20 billion per year. In a smaller, unrelated column on the right, was an article about Clinton adding $20 billion to the Pentagon's budget request for the coming year. He gave the military all the "savings" we garnered from "Welfare reform" without their even asking for it. I never saw any news analysis about it either. I wonder if anyone else noticed?
It just made it really obvious for me that gutting welfare had nothing to do with balancing the budget. It was all about putting downward pressure on wages by dismantling the social safety net, while race-baiting to distract workers from this fact. Divide and conquer.
"And Obama seems to have
Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:39 — Bite (not verified)"And Obama seems to have less backbone and fewer firm principles than even Bill Clinton - even more prone to a Stockholm Syndrome-like tendency to cozy up to his Republican batterers."
Wake up. You're over-thinking. Obama is as right wing a Republican as any wearing that label. Even though Obama talked to the Right, and Left, in his campaign speeches, we now see where he stands; firmly to the right. So you should begin writing articles now to actually OUT HIM as a Republican. Let's go, there's not much time. Disgrace him in article after article as a fake and as one who wore the Democratic label to be elected, merely. In other words, PUSH HIM MORE TO THE RIGHT by accusation and bullying him verbally, as he's done to the Left. If the Left does not get into the boxing ring with the phony neoliberal, then it will be completely ridiculed to the point of demoralization.
We must also not forget the
Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:40 — B (not verified)We must also not forget the Clinton admin's "Salvage rider" that gave companies another green light for over-logging our national forests.
Anyway, Obama ran on a progressive platform, and his betrayal hits harder because of it. I shouldn't be astonished, but I admit that I am.
Also, in his pre-election
Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:49 — Bite (not verified)Also, in his pre-election rhetoric, Obama called Clinton one of the "greatest" presidents in history. If you didn't see it coming through that comment, then SHAME ON YOU! You weren't paying attention. When Obama said he'd push for nuclear energy in his pre-election mouthing, and you still read him as a liberal, then an EVEN BIGGER SHAME ON YOU.
Obama is vile trash from Harvard. Expect worse.
And by the way, since when did anything intelligent come out of Bill Clinton's mouth?
And who could forget his repeal of the GS Act?
Obama is the best Republican President since Bush, you dumb fool.
So you still think he's a democrat?
"Beauty fades. Dumb is forever." (Judge Judy)
Obama is surrounded by
Sat, 12/11/2010 - 12:50 — Anonymous (not verified)Obama is surrounded by Clinton leftovers, much to the detriment of any progressive agenda we hoped for. Putting Bill behind the podium was the most overt symptom of Obama's psychopathology I've seen. He's incapable of any vestige of leadership. He must go in 2012. Those who believe that he can be changed by a primary challenge take no account of the limitations of his world view, shaped by pleasing the power elite, or of his arrogance.
Re: Bite Your comment:
Sat, 12/11/2010 - 15:03 — Anonymous (not verified)Re: Bite
Your comment: "Also, in his pre-election rhetoric, Obama called Clinton one of the "greatest" presidents in history. If you didn't see it coming through that comment, then SHAME ON YOU!" was only one of many indicators that trouble was ahead. But, like most of the voters that pushed his campaign forward, I didn't want to "see the flaws" in this candidate - I wanted Bush and his party "out" so I denied it all and blinded my better judgment. The first really significant wake-up call came when he began to announce his choices for cabinet and key leaders in his new administration - well before his inaugural address. Often, you can judge a man by the company he keeps...
Just a minute. It was not
Sat, 12/11/2010 - 21:49 — Robert B. (not verified)Just a minute. It was not only Republicans who liked NAFTA. It looked pretty bipartisan to me. How come Ross Perot hated it? How come Clinton liked it?
If some Mexican can scrape up enough pesos to buy a Ford, why shouldn't we sell him one without a $1300 tariff on top? Doesn't that benefit both of us?
Furthermore, if we're more engaged with countries like Mexico rather than less, might we not have more influence on human rights and environmental concerns? Nixon was right to become more engaged with China, and the endless embargo on Cuba has accomplished less than zero.
The two smartest Presidents of the 20th Century, in my opinion, were Nixon and Clinton. Look at the pageant of morons the Republican Party has been trotting out lately. You guys denounce Obama at your peril. In two years, you could get President Gingrich if you don't wise up.
You've completely lost touch
Sun, 12/12/2010 - 02:15 — Bearzerker (not verified)You've completely lost touch with reality Jeff...
Obama is bad because he is giving up more to appease his opponents then he is in support to his base and in doing this he is ignoring the blatant stupidity that got us into this mess to start with.
seriously... we need to roll back the clocks to 1999 and reverse every last piece of legislation [idiocy]that Bush43 ever pushed through his office, not doing so only makes the democrats as stupid as he is and confuses the difference between them and us.
NAFTA is bad? for the USA?
how & why do you think this?
if you honestly believe this then your far more dishonest then i thought... fair trade is better then free trade for the rest of the world, but in North America it would be best to lock down the NA block in a trade agreement and it should be free trade as we [Canada, Mexico & USA] should be on equal footing legislatively...
ending NAFTA would seriously damage our economy at the worst possible time.
lets kick impeachment around
Sun, 12/12/2010 - 11:17 — Anonymous (not verified)lets kick impeachment around
Hmm, kicking around
Sun, 12/12/2010 - 12:17 — Cap'n Canard! (not verified)Hmm, kicking around impeachment could get the administration to take the opposition of his own party seriously. One would think that a former community activist would have a natural inclination to explore the alternatives to government's approved policies. Tax breaks for the wealthy at the expense of the poor sounds very dangerous, He seems like a child playing with fire, at times it look as if he is playing the fiddle as the USA burns, but I'll give George W. Bush the credit for that job.
NAFTA "good"? Much of rural
Sun, 12/12/2010 - 14:43 — Curt (not verified)NAFTA "good"? Much of rural Mexico impoverished due to US gov't subsidized corn? It ain't about Fords, it ain't about equal footing. It's about giving corporations power over sovereignty. It's about creating a "wage war" to see which country will provide the lowest labor prices, a war those in the trenches always lose. Grab a look at the MTBE controversy and the NAFTA issues with that. NAFTA is "flat earth" ensconced in law.
"Free Trade" benefits the traders, the benefits to the general population have yet to be demonstrated.
that's right the
Sun, 12/12/2010 - 15:23 — Anonymous (not verified)that's right the corporations not satisfied with screwing the the American public have to screw the Mexican farmers to,,,,,,with Obama's turncoat record no fooling around ,really impeach him