If Clinton Is Serious About Economic Populism, She Should Come Out Against Fast Track
John Nichols,The Nation, April 17, 2015
Hillary Clinton has backed NAFTA-style free trade agreements and she has opposed NAFTA-style free trade agreements. Like many other prominent Democrats, she has been inconsistent in her support of what is best for workers, the environment and human rights.
But Clinton has a chance to get trade policy right when it matters. And when it matters is now.
Despite overwhelming opposition from labor, farm, environmental, and social-justice groups, Congress is preparing to consider whether to provide Obama with the fast track authority he seeks to construct a free trade deal linking the North American and Asian nations of the Pacific Rim. Imagine the North American Free Trade Agreement on steroids and you get a sense of what is at stake.
Yet, so far, Clintons office has offered only a statement about how she is watching closely as the debate evolves and a suggestion that she wants greater prosperity and security for American families, not trade for trades sake.
So what's Clinton's stand on the TPP? Well apparently "she is watching closely". I think her consternation tells us a lot about how serious to take her new populism.
more at: http://www.thenation.com/blog/204649/if-clinton-serious-about-economic-populism-she-should-come-out-against-fast-track
RUN BERNIE RUN
Autumn
(46,321 posts)RUN BERNIE RUN is right
PatrickforO
(15,109 posts)I'm watching Hillary indeed. Because I don't think she is a populist at all. Your signature quote actually predicts the election results, I believe, if Hillary is our candidate.
Of course, she could still win because the Republicans in the Klown Kar are all pretty much crazy...
Autumn
(46,321 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,557 posts)Eliza-liza-beth, where are you?... We got somewhere to go now...
antigop
(12,778 posts)John Nichols should know this...I think he's trying to box HRC in, just as Elizabeth Warren did.
HRC can't come out against it because she'll tick off Wall Street and her corporate donors.
HRC can't come out for it because it will tick off the unions and people who have to work for a living.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Her entire "Getting Started"
roll out, would have spoken
to growing wealth inequality,
not that Americans HAVE
fought back from tough times.
She would have addressed the
real world concerns of each
"actor" in her video in terms
of the actual economic situation,
not the imagined world
she presented.
She would have identified
who, what, how and, when
the "deck was stacked"
and made a commitment
to righting that injustice.
After all, a "stacked deck"
is a tacit admission of cheating!
And we know it was criminal
in some instances.
So yeah, "if she is serious"
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)specific about making the wealthy pay their fair share.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)I would want her to campaign and lobby to defeat it, hard.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,557 posts)One can hope.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to help the 99%. That's easy and won't bother Goldman-Sachs a bit. After it's passage she can be critical of the so-called agreement and continue to pretend to have the best interest of the 99% at heart.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I would be happy to find I am wrong.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,557 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)The problem is we understand it all too well.
Tariffs now!