I’m not quite sure how to read Mark Landler and Jane Perlez’s article in the New York Times on President Obama’s trip to Asia. It essentially scolds the president for not having an early and coherent and tough enough policy towards China to check their military and territorial ambitions and reassure our Asian allies. It frames the debate over passage of the Trans Pacific Partnership as a litmus test over whether America will “lose the chance to shape the economic future of the region, allowing China to forge ahead with its “Sino-centric economic order.”” And it suggests that, should Congress fail to pass the TPP, our relationships with countries like Japan and the Philippines will be so damaged that we’ll have no choice but to compensate militarily.
“Obama is seen as reluctant to push back,” said Alan Dupont, a former defense intelligence analyst for the Australian government. “He has allowed China to militarize the islands in the South China Sea. The United States hasn’t put it at the top of its list.”
To reassure its allies, Mr. Dupont said, the United States would have to reinforce its military presence in the Pacific even further than it has under Mr. Obama’s pivot, or rebalance, as it has also been called.
“There has to be a rebalance plus,” he said.
Obviously, any discussion of Chinese-American relations should be a very complicated endeavor. Despite a less-than-hospitable welcome to the American delegation, Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping were able to make an announcement further committing both countries to the targets and principles of the Paris climate agreement. So, our two countries can still cooperate on important matters despite a frosty relationship.
The Chinese actions in the South China Sea aren’t just provocative, they’re now getting crosswise of international law and are all highly unusual.
…China has dismissed a recent ruling by an international tribunal in The Hague that rebuked its aggressive reclamation of land on disputed shoals in the South China Sea and invalidated its historical claims to a large swath of those waters…
…China has extended its military reach there by building artificial islands with airfields, facilities that American commanders have said they regard as military bases. Although China appears to be taking stock of the situation since the unfavorable ruling in The Hague, Chinese military officials warn that they will continue with their building program in the waterway.
“China will never stop our construction,” the head of China’s navy, Adm. Wu Shengli, said in July.
Last month, China took delivery of a dredger, one of the biggest in its inventory, from a Dutch shipyard. The vessel would be suitable for dredging at Scarborough Shoal, a disputed reef 150 miles from the Philippines.
China, some academics say, plans to create an extremely large artificial island that would complete a strategic triangle of bases in the sea.
I talk to a lot of people and read a lot of comments on political blogs, and this article seems like it might as well be written in Chinese for all the connection it has to how folks here at home are thinking about China, and the Trans Pacific Partnership, and America’s proper role as a Pacific power.
Between the damage done by the Bush administration’s excellent adventure in Iraq and the fallout of the Great Recession, people in this country, particularly but not only on the left, no longer seem to give legitimacy or priority to things like bolstering our economic and military alliances in the Far East. I’ve read thousands of negative blog articles and comments about the TPP, and I can’t remember one that had anything to do with Japan’s reaction if it fails to pass or how it might cause other countries to lose trust in our leadership and seek accommodation with and protection from China. The country doesn’t seem to recognize, outside of some elite circles, that the TPP is primarily a geopolitical tool in intent and design much more than a way to expand copyright laws or enrich drug companies. Virtually no one cares why the Obama administration has pursued this agreement, nor understands it, nor would they really support it if they did understand it.
As far as I can tell, the overriding posture of the American public is that China can have whatever it wants in its sphere of influence, and their sphere of influence includes the territory of most of the inhabited Pacific. So, it’s ‘no’ to the TPP and ‘no’ to a “rebalance-plus” military buildup, and it’s a big middle finger to the economic and military imperialists who would make even a whimper of an argument in the other direction.
I blame the Iraq War for destroying faith and trust in the American Establishment that they can be believed, that they can deal with the world in a realistic way, that they can “win” (in Trump’s phrasing), and that we ought to be willing to make huge sacrifices in the service of their vision and leadership. Perhaps after the experience of Vietnam (and, to a degree, Korea), another failed Asian war was just one too many.
But we can’t ignore the importance of other failures. The trade deals of the last twenty-five years have accompanied a steady rise in income inequality, as U.S. tax and spending policies and globalization have hollowed out our middle class and devastated communities all over the country. Meanwhile, the Great Recession (its causes, impact, and the legislative/regulatory/legal reaction) did great damage to public trust in our Establishment policymakers.
Yet, despite the great loss of life and treasure in the global war on terror, the military successes of ISIS, and the increased risk and frequency of high casualty terrorist attacks in the West, people still feel basically unthreatened at home and utterly unconcerned about Chinese ambitions. People are certainly in no mood to risk American lives and treasure fighting over shoals, reefs, and islands (artificial or otherwise) in the Western/Far Eastern Pacific ocean.
One school of thought is that the failures and dishonesty of the American elite are so well-established, and have been reiterated so many times now, that this is the proper conclusion. Better to do nothing than to do big things wrong. Perhaps China is a better, more reliable partner for our Far Eastern allies, and who really cares if they are not? It’s probably our fault for having the imperialist impulses to challenge China in the first place.
And, I’ll admit, this is a very tempting way of looking at things. It’s an exhausting prospect trying to muster the energy to challenge it.
What I find frustrating, however, is that this isn’t a live debate. If I want to talk about it, I first have to introduce it as a set of concerns, because regular people aren’t concerned about these issues at all. That America might have a legitimate positive and partly military role to play in the Far East is not so much disbelieved as not even considered. It seems that no one even listens to what our Australian or Filipino or Japanese allies have to say on these matters. And they’d have to listen to them to even really disagree with them, but we don’t even get that far.
So, instead, the debate over the TPP is cast as an effort by economic elites to screw over the American worker, and that seems to complete the four corners of the debate. Yet, no one in the Far East is looking at this debate that way. They’re looking at it as a test of whether partnerships should (or even can) be made with the West, or whether they should seek partnerships and military protection from China.
Their conclusion is coming soon, and it most likely will be that we’ve collapsed as a Pacific power. Indeed, this appears to be the case. It would be too generous to say that this is what the American people want, because they haven’t ever thought about it that way, but they seem to somehow want it nonetheless.
And, perhaps they’re wise in their own way. After all, how much trust has been squandered?
But when I think about how much sacrifice was made during World War Two and afterwards to build up American leadership in the Pacific and elsewhere, it makes me sad to realize that the generations that came after failed this miserably.
If our elites want the public’s trust again, they’re clearly going to have to get our house in order first, and that means rebuilding our middle class and our hollowed out communities any way that they can.
In this sense, the appeal of Trump and the failure of the TPP are of a piece.
The American people have rescinded their faith in our leaders, and if that is going to have nasty geopolitical consequences and possibly lead to more war, repression, and disorder, then our elites should blame themselves first. And then they should realize that they no longer have any choice but to put the American worker and the middle class first in their set of priorities.
Ultimately, we can go to war with China or abandon the Pacific. Neither are good choices but there will be less death with the latter policy id if some billionaire don’t get to be trillionaires.
That seems a very contentious argument to me. There will be less death if we “abandon” the Pacific, meaning presumably that we cut ties with our allies in South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines and elsewhere, bring all our troops home, tell them to protect their own territorial sovereignty and add their own deterrents to North Korea’s nuclear program and China’s expansionism.
Also, I find it very pessimistic to argue that the only alternative to this is to have a war with China which would involve two nuclear powers.
I would not support a politician who adopted either policy because they’re both reckless and, in my opinion, morally bankrupt.
How is anything of war going to deter chinese expansionism? How has it so far?
Have you heard of this place Formosa?
And that wasnt trade agreements. it was raw naval power combined with a massive power imbalance. How does that relate to the present situation where the talings are even worse since they are clearly sovereign states not losers of a civil war.
Assuming your characterization where our relationship with Taiwan is strictly about floating boats and not shared values and mutually-beneficial economic arrangements, it still qualifies as “anything” or “something” short of war.
That was the relationship during the period when the Communists were most hot about conquering the island by force, example the first 2 Taiwan Straight crises.
Leaving aside the shared values (White Terror did not fully end until 1987 so I consider it boiler plate for our relationship overall) the key words here in the present day are mutually beneficial economic arrangements and that these developed over time. The original basis was and remains military cooperation imo. China soft-sells somewhat because they know we’d assist Taiwan militarily and the price is too high.
I think that particular example originated and still rests primarily on military force and without that basis the economic arrangements–a force multiplier clearly–would gave availed little on their own.
Yes. It was the last stronghold of the Koumintang. China wants it – badly. The non-Mainland refugee Formosans want it too, most of them. It is the USA who opposes re-unification. On the surface that looks like honoring our word, except, when has the USA ever honored its word when there is profit in ignoring past words.
Do you really think we will fire on a Chinese invasion fleet? I hope not, because we are outgunned and it will be the Philippines all over again, perhaps with another death march. And if we do go to war, short of nuclear, with China, what happens to the economy? It grinds to a halt because we are no longer self-sustaining. The factories were closed and machinery shipped to China (just ask in the ghost town called Harvard Illinois). The workers and supervisors and manufacturing engineers who knew how to run a manufacturing operation are retired or dead. Young people just know how to take selfies and ask if you want fries with that. Key components, key electronic components, are only made in China. Key military electronic components are made in China for God’s sake.
The United States is a paper tiger, capable of executing flea-bitten arabs in the asshole of the world, but incapable of standing up to China. Our only hope is that periodically, China turns from foreign engagement and turns it’s attention inward. Let’s hope they do it again soon.
Look its not our fault the pre-millenial generation gutted unions and schools and their apprenticeship programs so badly US corps. now seek experienced machinists abroad.
I would and do agree that we are a paper tiger. Even leaving aside outsourcing vital capabilities like being able to get our astronauts, our MIC is so corrupt it can’t even do its job anymore.
Let’s not blame the “pre-millenial generation[s].” It was really quite complicated and those generations were jerked around and didn’t have a clue what they were buying into with their patriotic, pro-capitalism, anti-communism, American exceptionalism belief system. Their reference points were the glory of WWII and the New Deal that put workers a step or two up on the economic ladder and their kids would do as well or better than they had. They/we got so hooked on materialism that more seemed natural and capitalism did continue to deliver more over all those decades right up to the present time. The costs were mostly hidden unless one was perceptive, valued quality over quantity, considered waste sinful, was ecological, etc.
That’s a reasonable defense. I don’t buy it for their present behavior but I’ll give them mitigating circumstances for the 20th century.
Thanks. Woefully incomplete and leaves out the critical component of time. Legislation is rarely simple enough that the average person can understand what it means for them individually or collectively and can grasp the length of time it takes before the full impact of the change materializes. So, there’s always an element of needing to trust that government officials are doing the right thing. And beginning in the early 1930s US governments at local, state, and national levels delivered so much good that that trust increased. By being forced to behave, trust in the private sector also increased.
That contributes to a sunny optimism wrt government, business, science, and development. The post-WWII fly in the ointment was that the US economy faltered when federal deficit spending and/or military spending declined rapidly. Truman did both and the predictable outcome led to the GOP winning Congress in ’46. The wrong lessons were learned by politicians in both parties. So, here we are nearly seventy years on hooked on war and debt.
*short of war
Western corporates are deep in the Chinese economy. We have bilateral trade deals with China already.
Read this by one at the table when the geopolitics were being discussed…http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/opinion/why-the-tpp-deal-wont-improve-our-security.html
Can we take a step from the precipice?
In human history it is probably accurate to say that no region has seen such an enormous rise in the standard of living than the People in the Pac Rim.
So if I am right, why are we inventing a war? Why are we seeing some sort of crisis?
China and the US are going to have a very real global competition.
But this isn’t the Cold War. The US and China are in fact incredibly dependent on each other.
The USSR and USA had nukes pointed at each other.
The US and China have interlocking Supply Chains, and are integrated with each other in a thousand different ways.
I suspect the writers are fronting neocons who expect the checkbooks to be out in the next Congress and are goosing the issues. Suddenly we have “enemies” everywhere and our resources are inadequate!
“We” inventing? Are we ordering the Chinese out of the South China sea or is it the other way around. And who is getting hyperbolic about the Kuril Islands? Not the USA.
A very good article Booman.
Bush did incredible damage.
However some might shout ‘war is coming’, the world is actually safer now than it has ever been. Everyone is interconnected, and the goal should be to make everyone MORE interconnected. It’s not a matter of ‘war or capitulate’, which is a superficial and frankly idiotic perspective. It’s a matter of using diplomacy and contacts to bring pressure on the countries who ‘push it’.
One more reason elections matter.
.
Pressur? What pressure? “Do what we want or we won’t buy from you again and have another Depression?” Appeal to their better natures? We have nothing to pressure with except a grotesque threat of nuclear holocaust. “Do what we want or we will destroy the world?” And if they call our bluff?
So, do you still think Obama wants this pact to fail?
I think we will fight China eventually and we will lose because every great hegemon’s time passes and it passes as a result of imperial overstretch. This is a huge reason I blame the Bushies for throwing away our surplus and raping our econony.
Bravo! Can’t say I give a snot about the geopolitical games in China, the Middle East or anywhere else. American exceptionalism is dead to me.
Clinton needs to get this message or she will be a one term president.
Another great example of wasted US resources… the Afghan “justice” system:
“Mr. Hamidi said the attorney general’s office had been a “systematic” clearing house for graft by the elite, putting the stamp of legality on shady deals and corrupt syndicates while it pressed politically favorable prosecutions.
“It was extremely political — it was a political tool at the hands of those who wanted to hit their rivals, to dishonor them,” he said. “It was a place for character assassination.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/world/asia/new-afghan-attorney-general-seeks-justice-in-system-rif
e-with-graft.html?ref=world&_r=0
You want to spend money on this while neglecting the basics here at home? Let the Taliban have their way with them.
No. No matter who is the (R) nominee in 2020, we will be told that he/she is the antichrist and Hitler rolled into one and we have to vote for the lesser evil.
I’m sure you’ll be around to remind us that Hillary is the real Hitler…in a pantsuit.
No, I’ll probably be dead. That’s your pleasant thought for the holiday. Oh and maybe changing the day’s name from Labor day to Management Day to better reflect reality.
More delusions.
And it will be, hyperbole aside, true again.
Boo, I guess where I quibble with you is what is meant by elites and people turning their backs on them. Trump is not as rich as he says he is, but his whole schtick is to be elite: a powerful, domineering man, who excels at business, pushes people around, and proudly decks everything out in gaudy gold. He went bankrupt owning five helicopters and a huge yacht. People haven’t turned their backs on the elites, they just like the real tv brand right now.
Moreover, I think the failure of TPP also has to do with Obama’s greatest strength and his greatest weakness–his quiet deliberative nature. He never reached out to the public on the TPP or explained it, or the reasons for it. I get he didn’t want to engender automatic Republican opposition, but sometimes you’ve got to make the case. The vacuum left others to fill it, now we are at wher we’re at.
Moreover, I think the failure of TPP also has to do with Obama’s greatest strength and his greatest weakness–his quiet deliberative nature. He never reached out to the public on the TPP or explained it, or the reasons for it.
You’re wrong. He has reached out. He’s just being disingenuous about it. Same with empty suit up in Canada. They both act as if trade will stop if the TPP is scuttled. I think everyone knows how laughable that is. Notice they never mention the ISDS or any actual complaints people have about it?
I guess I’m wrong then, because I’ve sure seen the President out making the rounds, discussing it a bunch, doing interviews on the topic. He even answered audience questions at that one place during that onetime. I’ll bet you’ve seen him in action on it too.
No. We are too dumb to appreciate his God-like wisdom. that’s the trouble with elites.
The President should’ve made the case publicly, that’s all my point is. He can’t expect passage, no matter how wonderful or not wonderful the deal is, if he leaves it between himself and a few members of Congress. Sometimes that works, we’ve seen it, but other times, particularly if it could directly impact people’s well being, perceived or otherwise, it doesn’t.
The thing that’s frustrating to me is that when the President makes the TPP case, as he was teed up to do today by Fareed Zakaria on his Sunday show, he is not asked good questions which help him make the case. It undermines Barack’s effort, because controversial TPP provisions which draw opposition are never explained to the public by him in persuasive ways. I’ve developed the opinion that the President and others don’t want to face tough questions because the current set of TPP policies can’t survive scrutiny.
Agreed on that point for sure. Fast track authority passed by a hair, which I think is a testament to how poor a job the president’s public sale is/was at that time. Maybe there really is no good public sale to be made, but I never felt he tried beyond gathering (mainly) Republican leadership support in Congress.
I understand. I just think his failure to do so shows contempt for the electorate.
It seems that no one even listens to what our Australian or Filipino or Japanese allies have to say on these matters. And they’d have to listen to them to even really disagree with them, but we don’t even get that far.
As you say, it’s complicated. Do we listen to those on Okinawa who tell us to GTFO? You do know what’s going on there and why they want us to GTFO, right?
So, instead, the debate over the TPP is cast as an effort by economic elites to screw over the American worker, and that seems to complete the four corners of the debate.
Because it does screw over the American worker. It gives multinational corporations tremendous power. Makes them more powerful than governments.
But when I think about how much sacrifice was made during World War Two and afterwards to build up American leadership in the Pacific and elsewhere, it makes me sad to realize that the generations that came after failed this miserably.
The leadership that got involved Southeast Asia?
The American people have rescinded their faith in our leaders, and if that is going to have nasty geopolitical consequences and possibly lead to more war, repression, and disorder, then our elites should blame themselves first. And then they should realize that they no longer have any choice but to put the American worker and the middle class first in their set of priorities.
That’s the inherent problem in our system, isn’t it? The President is the president of the United States, not of the whole Pacific Rim. Yet the way our system is set up, foreign policy is the easiest thing for a president to get accomplishments. People don’t care about China or Japan when they have college debt up to their eyeballs and can’t afford to buy a home.
“You do know what’s going on there and why they want us to GTFO, right?”
I don’t.
military personnel stationed there, for one thing.
Right. We have a base there. And we are trying to build a new one. And those on Okinawa don’t want us there at all. Why? We are asshole guests, that’s why. Rape. Murder. DUI’s. Pretty much all go unpunished because those service members are sent home instead of facing justice there for the crimes they commit. And that doesn’t even get to the environmental crimes we commit there because of the base. The dumping of sewage and stuff.
Those are all crimes punishable under UCMJ. The US will go to great lengths to avoid having troops subject to local law in foreign nations. That does not mean troops are immune from military prosecution.
My position on Japan is that its a country well capable of defending itself. I fully expect Japan would quickly develop nuclear weapons were we ever to leave our bases there.
The result of the extension of US Power in the Pacific was the greatest explosion in living standards the world has ever seen.
Japan recovered during our occupation. Korea and Taiwan became modern countries. China evolved (for reasons of their own) and with access to our markets saw enormous growth.
I really don’t see the cause for pessimism and the case for failure that is made here.
Objectively I just think its wrong.
And really don’t see the crisis here either.
The average person in the region is seeing their lives improve significantly.
I REALLY don’t get the point of view here.
>>The result of the extension of US Power in the Pacific was the greatest explosion in living standards the world has ever seen.
correlation is NOT causation.
This is facile. Arguing counterfactuals is a fool’s errand but the links between the postwar american stance in the pacific and the economic successful development of our trading partners is far from just a correlation. There are clear causal links.
It’s all so simple:
Anything bad that happens in the world is the US’s fault, one way or another.
Anything good that happens is despite the US and the US can take no credit for it.
This is received wisdom in certain circles and cannot be gainsaid; it is the universal lens with which to view events in the modern world.
This is another, mirror-image, version of American exceptionalism.
We’re the indispensable country — for screwing things up.
It’s just as bad as the city-on-a-hill kind, but with better music, and better food.
I found this very interesting. And there was Deming.
Japanese economic takeoff after 1945
http://www.iun.edu/~hisdcl/h207_2002/jecontakeoff.htm
The bellwether for other Asian countries to learn from.
Speaking of WW II and the post war era. I just finished “Covert Affair” by Jennet Conant. It is about the OSS (Office of Security Services) in SE Asia during WW II. It was an intelligence gathering agency but not in the sinister CIA mold. Nearly all the people on the ground in Indonesia, Viet Nam, Thailand, China, etc. were warning of the nationalistic, anti-colonial fervor developing. Instead of listening to what was going on internally, we decided to support our European allies–the British, French, Dutch– who wanted to retain their colonies. People in those countries who helped us fight the Japanese were totally screwed after the war. We abandoned them and their righteous causes. We made it even worse by going to Viet Nam in defense of colonialism. This was an egregious FAILURE of leadership.
Another important part of the book is the McCarthy period. Many of the people in the OSS and State Department were targeted because of their support of national movements in SE Asia.
Finally, the McCarthy era also undermined confidence and trust in our government, both internally and externally.
the pro-TPP side has arrived at the point of “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks”.
if the issue is China’s increased aggressiveness, what is the relevance of an economic treaty?
history suggests that none of those Asian countries will be happy cuddling up to their huge neighbor.
Actually China already has trade deals with most of the 13.
“If anything, America is too often at the end of those chains, as the global consumer of last resort. It’s not investing in domestic, let alone global, infrastructure. [Not to mention our consumer demand is in the toilet.]
[…]
… the administration is absolutely right that America needs tools to counter China’s growing influence in Asia and around the world. But until America can come close to matching China’s dynamism, it has no hope of countering its economic and geopolitical influence with old-fashioned trade agreements, no matter how monumental they are said to be.
(Again, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/opinion/why-the-tpp-deal-wont-improve-our-security.html)
>>China already has trade deals with most of the 13.
of course they do. and we have trade deals with them and with China. Everybody already trades with everybody else, which is why I’m not buying the argument that not passing this new trade deal is a threat to world peace.
>>until America can come close to matching China’s dynamism
that’s a very interesting word there, open to interpretation. I wonder what the writer means by “dynamism”? Economic growth based on low wages and the right to pollute? Military adventurism?
I think it refers back to our neglect of infrastructure, human and physical.
We are not investing in ourselves. Rentiers have us by the throat.
That dynamism you speak of is backed by 1.2 billion people. That gives them the resources to be a very powerful nation. I find it hard to believe a trade agreement will change that dynamic. So I agree that until we can match that dynamism we will not effectively counter China in the Far East. Better start with fixing ourselves and our hollowed out middle class. Otherwise the cart is before the horse. Not a good starting point.
So if ‘no one understands’ the TPP whose fault is that?
And if all the IP and corporate greed protections aren’t the real point, why aren’t they simply stripped out?
This post just seems like another addition to the, ‘you little people just aren’t capable of understanding the big picture that we can’t be bothered to explain in detail. So just please bend over and take it and then just run along.’
The entitled elites just don’t seem to think that selling their plans to the general public is even a minimal obligation. And now they seem aghast that everyone (Brexit, Bernie, Trump supporters) seem to be hip to the jive of their bullshit. And their response is – but this time it’s different, you’ll be screwed for a very worthwhile reason. Trust me it will be better for some of us and you’ll thank me later. I’d explain it, but you wouldn’t understand it anyway, so let’s just skip that pain. Just sign right here and we can move on. Also domino theory, you don’t want to get involved in another land war in Asia, do you?’
Henry K is cackling over his cauldron right now.
One wonders if push back led to Henry K’s decision NOT to endorse HC at this time.
Dr. K has survived, and thrived, all these many years because he’s extremely adept at playing both sides. His non-endorsement, keeps his powder dry with GOP elites and non-tea bag GOP elected officials and his relationship with HRC was cemented long ago.
Team Clinton slobbering over the prospect of a Dr. K endorsement once again illustrates their hack political instincts. Such an endorsement doesn’t increase her potential votes from Republicans and Independents, but it could easily cement the decision of leaners to go third party, leave the top line blank, or skip voting altogether.
Leaners would run away from Clinton if Kissinger endorsed her? As much as I abhor Kissinger, I don’t see evidence that this claim is true on balance at all. What I think is likely is that some leaners would be repelled, some leaners would be attracted, and most would care little or not at all.
The campaign team whose candidate is the prohibitive favorite to win the Presidency is called a team of hacks. Sounds legit.
My guess would be that roughly 75% of the people who vote in this upcoming election couldn’t tell you who Kissinger was.
Id also add that you need to consider if we are strong enough to do this. I dont think we are.
Guess you missed Jared Bernstein’s piece in the WaPo the other day, discussing your very Power Points. It is hard to know just which cause is paramount for Washington–gifting corporates with our governance (down to the municipal level), or the replacement of trade for diplomacy.
Since our new Dollar Store customers are in rebellion: “Because US workers were rich by world standards, it’s OK that they bore the costs of bringing up global averages, while the 1% cashed in. Will Doctor Pangloss please pick up the white courtesy phone?” (naked capitalism), the “jobs, jobs, jobs” is not selling anymore.
Jared:
“First, the administration argues that after years of difficult, complex, multilateral negotiations, if Congress fails to approve the TPP, it will be a sign to our allies that the United States can’t be trusted. Politically, this seems stunningly naive. Surely negotiators, both ours and theirs, knew that Congress would never rubber-stamp a deal like this. I’ve long watched and even participated in such dealmaking and those involved are constantly recalibrating the odds of passage. Our negotiators would never have guaranteed passage; to the contrary, it is far more likely they were presenting a realistic assessment to their counterparts, who, of course, would have been doing their own homework on this as well.” (It is your case is that foreign govts have not noticed the growth of protectionism over here?)
…”Given the extent of existing and ever-increasing global ties between China and countries throughout Asia, the idea that we’re somehow going to wrest regional influence from China in their own back yard is not credible. For all their arguments to the contrary, both the U.S. government and our businesses recognize this, as they are increasingly ramping up their integration with China through direct investment by our multinational corporations and yes, bilateral trade deals (the U.S./China Bilateral Investment Treaty).
To call China a “threat” in this regard is misleading. What they are is an aggressive competitor for market share, and yes, they are gaining influence through their own bilateral trade agreements (many with TPP countries), foreign investment and financial ties with other nations. So we need a China strategy.
But that’s not at all what we’re talking about here. The TPP is a 12-nation agreement that consists of 6,000 pages of rules of origin for traded goods (which, not incidentally, are actually too kind to China for even my comfort), dispute settlement methods to protect investors (which a. damagingly put our skin in the game vs. that of investors themselves, and btw are now the source of financial speculation), extended patents for biologic drugs and intellectual property rights (not exactly “free trade”), and more. (And they still managed to leave out enforceable rules against currency manipulation!)
I would need more time to digest and respond to this – thank you, Boo, for putting it out as a conversation starter. But I have a couple of immediate thoughts:
Not exactly. Thry’vr BEEN prioritizing the American worker and the middle class – as in, prioritizing how to extract as much wealth as possible from them. You’re asking not to bump up a priority, but to reverse course entirely, and to do so against their immediate self-interest. That’s never going to happen so long as the elites are 100% synonymous with economic elites. That that’s not going to happen until our political system reverses a decades-long trend and reduces corporate and billionaire influence in American politics. That system has, this year, spit up as its candidates an ignorant billionaire and the wife of a couple that got powerful and rich in their own right by helping package palatably policies that catered to the rich. Thagt was always the bottom line of “The Third Way.”
Elite American politics is now an intramural squabble between billionaires that believe the toxic bilge used by the right to justify such policies, and those who knew all along it was a scam. Little wonder the unfavorability ratings for BOTH candidates are at historic highs, even though only one of the two candidates is transparently unfit for office.
Both the middle class and US influence overseas are casualties of things like Citizens United. Even US military spending is now primarily another wealth transfer scheme – which it essentially has been now at least since the collapse of the Cold War – rather than an extension of a coherent foreign policy to extend US imperial power. (US corporations could not care less about ISIS or the Taliban – the targets of our fancy kill toys really are irrelevant in that sense – but they care a lot about billion-dollar contracts for jets.)
US foreign policy can’t confront China not because the public has no appetite – that can always be manufactured – but because US elites, our economic elites, owe a lot of money to China and rely heavily on China’a cheap labor to help them get richer.
China’s leaders basically took the long view and outsmarted ours. What ordinary Americans did or didn’t want has had very little to do with it.
squabble between billionaires, agree. and looks to me that’s the direction the global situation is going – not towards rebuilding the US economy and developing a prosperous middle class with some future for upcoming generations, acting like we espouse democray at home and abroad. this caught my eye the other day, in a depressing kind of way as a result of pursuing polarized global situation rather than, hey, diplomacy, trade agreements that are about people not corporate profits and lack of accountability
http://www.juancole.com/2016/08/russian-challenge-policy.html
We are the #1 in arms sales. Russia is pretty far down, about a third of ours.
http://www.businessinsider.com/arms-sales-by-the-us-and-russia-2014-8
Do you see a bit of projection in this?
yes, projection in terms of motives attributed, yes, projection.
Is it just me or is the map showing something entirely different than your claim here? You might be right but I’ve looked at the page a few times and, not willing to do the math, am assuming the tables add up to the figures on the map.
The map I posted was to address the link on Juan Cole and was intended to show just who was militarizing Africa. It aint Russia.
And there is this. https://mic.com/articles/89831/surprising-map-shows-all-the-african-countries-where-the-u-s-has-acti
ve-military-operations#.LASIjGETx
Wonder how many private military are involved that do not have to be counted as US troops.
imo the more alarming, and more likely, prospect than new cold war between world powers, is the fighting among oligarchs for control of world resources, with the rest of us as collateral damage. Ukraine is a test case of this, and btw many think that the mercenary army of one of the oligarchs shot down the passenger airliner.
War is Racket has been replaced with ‘Trade Agreements are a Racket’
Smedley may have oversimplified the situation for his audience but the general message on being aware of what the real motivations are, who the real players are, and where the real rewards are going to is timeless.
I think you underplay the significance of NAFTA. You cannot demonstrate the counterfactual, of course, but who now would sign NAFTA if we were to hit reset to 1993 or whatever? The agreement is very unpopular. The whole structure of super-national “trade courts” stinks to high heaven and everyone knows it. Add to that the cynicism inducing amnesty the bankers received after 2008, and yeah, f*** them.
The problem is, Booman, that strategically speaking we already blew the China thing a long time ago. Chinese raw materials and manufacturing is absolutely vital to the U.S. economy. The way supply chains work today, whole U.S. industries could be paralyzed if the Chinese supplier did not deliver on time. And China dominates the Asian economy as well.
Not only that, they are literally buying us, bit by bit.
TPP, even forgetting all its terrible faults, would not change any of this. That;s the real reason why support for it is so tepid. It’s not worth it.
This discussion of large international trade deals which is posted at Martin’s main gig is worthwhile:
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/08/29/the-end-of-big-trade-deals/
I thought these were particularly on point:
“…Let me nail up a thesis to the trade church door. Modern trade negotiations are illegitimate. In their current form they cannot possibly lead to a democratically acceptable result. That is why they are doomed to fail…
…It is…typically impossible for third parties such as policymakers to assess the weight of (countervailing) interests a priori. They have to find out, and this is normally done by allowing representatives of the affected groups to state their case…
…My contention is that conducting trade negotiations over business regulations in the way developed for tariffs is fatally flawed. It would need a radically different system, with true participation of stakeholders, transparency of process, and better political accountability.”
The piece explains why trade deals have typically been constructed in insular ways, with negotiating nations bringing only business industry leaders into the negotiations, and explains why these constructions have become unable to carry the weight necessary to shepherd the deals into passage by the negotiating nation’s legislative bodies.
Part of what Wimberley brings forward here is the presumption that business leaders would see to it that the interests, needs and rights of consumers, workers and the environment would be taken care of in the course of the trade deal policy discussions. It’s obvious that this “rational free market” premise has been proven wrong by history over and over again.
As a Union guy, I’d point out something which is rarely mentioned in searches for solutions to economic and social inequality, even among progressives: collective bargaining. With bigger and bigger employer institutions being created by bigger and bigger mergers of corporations, Big Business has become able to vastly increase their collective bargaining power.
Portions of the Labor movement have attempted to respond by also merging their organizations, but the increasingly hostile systems of regulations and laws in the United States and seemingly everywhere else have acted as an anchor dragging down the ability for workers to organize and collectively bargain.
Those advocating for the TPP and TTIP claim that the deals would respect and enable worker power, but that is not borne out by policy evidence. Instead it is said as a bromide by the advocates, while they provide no firm answers to firm questions about such things as the appalling history of Investor State Dispute Settlement courts and how they alter the policies of nations well in advance of the forwarding of any claim to an ISDS court.
Larger collective bargaining structures which fight for less powerful people grow more than worker power. Consumer, environmental and other interests are served by some collective organizations, but laws and regulations must be put in place to enable their organizing and leverage. Laws and regulations have been installed which assist businesses in growing their size and power; we need to be responded to in similar fashion.
Well, I think he is pretty spot on. And it will take a couple small ones that actually DO WHAT THEY PROMISE to engender any new trust, imo.
Corporate “collective bargaining” (sheesh, never thought THAT would become a reality) needs to be addressed by General Sherman, again, too. (Or in his spirit.)
Meantime the 9th Circuit Court just deregulated tech companies that hurry out and buy a common carrier figleaf telecom.
https:/www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/31/how-the-worlds-biggest-tech-companies-c
ould-wriggle-out-of-all-privacy-regulations?wpisrc=nl_tech&wpmm=1
Guess the neoliberal commentariat over there did not know what to make of his piece. Four comments. Sad.
Collective bargaining (requiring unions) is the only institution whereby individuals — by banding together — can tilt the playing field even partially back from its extreme tilt in favor of the bosses/business/corporations. Without it, workers are completely at the mercy of the whims and/or exploitive** intent of bosses/businesses/corporations holding all the power.
The “free market”* dogma that business will take care of workers if it is just left unencumbered by laws and regulations, and everyone will be better off as a result has (as you rightly note) been so thoroughly disproven by the Reality that is experience throughout history that it’s a wonder anyone can still manage to cling to it, even dishonestly, i.e., knowing better but doing so out of self-interest.
*scare quotes obligatory
**yikes! the ignorant spell-check function here flags that as misspelled! If you insert “at” to form the linguistic abomination “exploitative”, the squiggly red underline goes away! (The eternal question: what does an “exploitative” something “exploitate”; and more to the point, what does it even mean to “exploitate” something???)
Damn well done set of concerns, BooMan.
What we needed was to be discussing this before W took the helm and all the books about the China Century (analogous to The American Century) came out.
First, the Bush-Cheney administration and their Project for a New American Century militarists collapsed post-Cold War US power as the sole superpower by actually trying to use the military instead of being more restrained. Power is as power is perceived.
Second, the US military-industrial-complex is so corrupt that it has created the most expensive military in the world but hollowed out its real capabilities. After 10 years of China taking notice, they have capabilities that the US squandered with complexity, overruns, and profiteering. US military response is now overextended and dancing in front of crises. Obama and Kerry have danced better than most would and in the face of Congressional obstruction, a fact that China turned to its advantage in the purported snubbing of President Obama. Thank Mitch McConnell for being a Chinese fellow-traveler on this.
Third, China has large physical resources on which to rest its power, a recent history that drives it toward assertion against the West, and a mixed economy that allows it to deploy infrastructure at will. The US conservative fiscal philosophy has bobbled the US economy, misdirected resources into the military and police, and increased domestic inequality and conflict. This disunity is playing out in the current election. Progressives have pointed out this folly for well over 10 years but have been brushed aside by business-as-usual politics. And now you discover that the chickens have come home to roost.
Fourth, the fact that China is an economic, political, and cultural competitor does not make it a military enemy. It is to President Obama’s credit that he played this out as policy at the G-20. The military nervous nellies are their own axes to grind and are looking from the perspective of worst case scenarios that can only be dealt with by using — ta-da — the military.
Fifth, the US is a third the population of China and see-saws with China with having the largest economy. If China economically mobilizes its total population it will have by far the largest economy in the world. How much of that economy does the US want to encourage going into its military.
Sixth, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a lousy tool for geopolitics. Trying to save it with that bullshit when it is a collaborative bit of half-baked mercantilism shows how bad the agreement is. There are much more direct geopolitical options for integrating China into a peaceful and prosperous global system. Isn’t that what US policy should be about?
Seventh, the persistence of the central-bank-caused global Great Recession has sharpened nationalist politics around the world. Austerity creates an economic race to the bottom; it also creates a political race to the bottom. China and Russia are no longer socialist states if they ever were; they are state capitalist states that have liberalized to allow some large oligarchic private competition amid a nationalist and local cultural frame. For Putin that frame is Russian Orthodoxy. For China, that cultural frame is whatever the Chinese Communist Party (ComINO) dictates or allows in the culture. The glorious Chinese nation persists as an ethnic dominance of minorities within China. The nationalists in Russia and China are every bit as dangerous as those in the UK, the US, Japan, France, and so on. One of our analytical lenses must see from the perspective of the late 1920s and early 1930s; a dangerous world is possible, bot another less dangerous world is possible as well. In whichever world emerges, China will be a huge power; only treachery on the part of other nations will prevent that. Ralph Waldo Emerson in another context remarked, “when you strike at a king, you must kill him. ” That is the danger of US policy at the moment with its obvious encirclement and calls for military engagement. China is not likely to collapse and is more likely to create a Eurasian land infrastructure to get around any US maritime interruption. But the race to establish bases seeks to deny US encirclement.
Eighth, after 150 years of mining US continental and Alaskan resources, the US has dwindling strategic reserves in some materials and expensive prospects in recovery through recycling from solid waste landfills. Europe is in the same situation. The global South is currently a competition between US/NATO/Japan countries and China to exploit Latin American, African, and Asian subcontinent and Indian Ocean land-based resources. Where would a war effort come from should the US fail at deterrence?
Ninth, who gave the US the mandate to dominate East Asia in order to prevent Chinese domination? How is it that geopolitical dominance is still part of the international system? That is a practical not an idealistic question because the game is so obvioiusly destructive with current technology. The same question goes to the Chinese leadership. Japan’s reaction is in full memory of why China, Korea, and even Southeast Asia might have a 70-year-old grudge against them. Will dominant China do what Japan did 75 years ago? Is China planning the Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere of the 21st century?
I have argued for about five years now that Bush killed the prospect of continuing the US global empire as the sole superpower. And the most stable arrangement was regional spheres of influence through mutual security agreements like NATO and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that balanced the new great powers: China, US, Russia, India, Pakistan in at least three regional organizations with a degree of overlapping membership. Those organizations provide mutual security in that aggression against one is aggression against all. The overlapping membership acts as a brake on World War I reflexive mistakes. Now this idea is salient. The next President should pursue a set of relationships between NATO, the SCO, Mercosur, the Arab League, and the Organization of African Unity within the framework of the UN Security Council. This might require realignment of the permanent security council members.
So what to do about China. Encourage development of the New Silk Road infrastructure to connect Europe. That will occupy manufacturing and resources in a way that cools the sea route anxiety. The South China Sea and Moluccas’s passage is strategically China’s Panama Canal. They want control of it like the US does of the Panama Canal. The US is very solicitous of the interests of Colombia, Panama, Nicaragua, and Ecuador, right? China will have similar relationships with Southeast Asia. The likely way those nations will manage their mutual security would be to be at least observers in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. That likely could include Australia and New Zealand.
The geopolitical freakout by US politicians has been one of the ways of goosing military expenditures. In the current circumstances we need more butter, fewer guns. Worldwide. We’ve reached the point of diminishing returns on guns – domestically and internationally. For our own domestic economy and for the global economy, we need to lead the walkback of military expenditures.
Trade will do little to the US economy until the domestic economy is at full employment and rising wages. And US corporations are investing in the US again. And the US is building a sustainable upgraded infrastructure that moves to cycles of lowering resource usage costs and lowering operating costs.
That means that all of the current trade deals should be scuttled for the boondoggles they are. The geopolitical argument is cover for the failure of the business elite to deliver a working economy and realistic equal free trade. Arbitraging trade barriers is too profitable. What is harmonization of regulations meant harmonization at the best standards instead of the worst standards?
All of the intellectual property elements of the trade agreements needs to come out in the open. Copyright, patent, and intellectual property is now getting in the way of the free flow of ideas; the Enlightenment purpose has been thrown upside down.
Finally, the sunk cost argument for the Transpacific Partnership should be exposed for bad economics. The fact that so many spent so much time trying to put one over on the public should not be rewarded. The corporations involved likely have been adequately compensated through the tax deductions for the cost of their lobbying (er, consulting) with the US Trade Representative.
Ten!
all good, thank you.
Give the mana ten?
I dont agree with it all but an excellent starting point for discussion. I do quibble about the canal. We dont control it now, not even unofficially or the attempted expansion wouldnt be the oncoming debacle that its going to be.
scuttling TPP et al.
Thought to point it out earlier (i.e., that it’s a fallacy!) in response to something somebody linked earlier (probably/maybe this thread? too lazy to check) that presented it as a “serious” argument for passing TPP! Didn’t get around to it, so glad you did.
I am old enough to remember when Japan was going to take over the world economically. When Tokyo real estate was valued more than the state of Calif. then the EU was going to overwhelm the US with economic and population advantages.
Both ran into the demographic bomb in the cellar. Aging populaitons that don’t replenish working young people cause economies to stagnate. Cultural barriers that do not welcome or assimilate immigrants block growth.
Through all the hand wringing about TPP and the comments in this thread, none mention China’s own bomb.
One child policy,women in the work force unwilling to have multiple children, aging urban and rural populations all put an incrediable strain on China’s economy. Already military spending cutbacks are announced. Chinese demographers are saying the same thing and immigration could be its only salvation; but all the local sources of immigrants are aging as well. What’s left? Africa? Even they think that’s unimaginable.
So why China’s agressive military moves? Like Russia’s I think the real cause is political paralysis in Washington. “If they can’t agree on Fedreal Judges, then they sure as hell can’t agree on our push in the Baltic or South China Sea.” An Administration that is not automatically opposed in Congress on everything from geo-political strategy to how many pencils in the Old Executive Office Bldg will go a long way in curbing said actions. China is taking advantage and grabbing all they can before Washington wakes up and they have to trade some away and gut their military to take care of the old folks on the farm. Because if they don’t, the Communist Party in China as a ruling power is gone and we are back to Russia and the corrupt kleptocracy. There is a much longer cultural tradition against such things in China and an attempt to establish this would be met by extreme and varied resistance.
So, personally, I think the hair on fire worry about China and the need for TPP or other trade deals is done for other’s economic interests, not for the nation as a whole. China will be anothe Japan with added advantages, but will have to spend increasing portions of its economic growth maintaining the political status quo or have its elites tossed out in the street. If there is even modest political change in the US, it could potentially take off compared to other global economies.
Ridge
—-excerpt—–
“China’s political leaders beginning in roughly 2020 will be faced with a difficult choice: allow growing levels of poverty within an exploding elderly population, or provide the resources necessary to avoid this situation,” Haas writes in Political Demography. If China’s government decides in favor of the latter option, Haas argues, American power will benefit. More broadly, he foresees a coming “geriatric peace,” as nations around the world find themselves too burdened to challenge America’s military preeminence.
Recent events may well provide a preview of this reality. When Xi Jinping announced last year that he was slashing China’s armed forces by 300,000 troops, Beijing spun the news as proof of China’s peaceful intentions. Demographics provide a more compelling explanation. ….
Even as China’s workforce shrinks, America’s is expected to increase by 31 percent from 2010 to 2050. This growing labor supply will boost economic growth, strengthen the tax base, and relieve pressure on the Social Security system. At the same time, Americans will continue to enjoy a substantial advantage over the Chinese in terms of per capita income. This advantage in wealth will continue to underwrite U.S. security commitments and capabilities around the world.
That the U.S. is not facing population shrinkage is due largely to immigration. ….
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/chinas-twilight-years/480768/
—————
A couple light articles with links about China’s attempts to deal with it.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/04/01/China-Turns-Face-Its-Aging-Population
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/11/03/How-China-Can-Deal-Its-Rapidly-Aging-Population
The coming measure of wealth is not per capita income, a poor measure to begin with given unequal distribution.
It is efficient use of resources per household. The key point there is the environmental tradeoff of household capital equipment (labor-saving appliances) and external jobs in a household as resource limits bite.
What essentially is happening in Asia is stripmining of essentially slave labor to increase the capital infrastructure of Asian nations. And create their own billionaires.
Seniors in the population do not increase without end. China will not have a very long crisis no more than the US Social Security crisis will last very long.
And it is possible that China opens itself to immigrant workers, culturally difficult but possible.
A lot does depend on choices, no matter how institutions stack the deck for certain choices.
A Chinese friend at the post office tells me that there are many Americans working in her home town of Shanghai. They marry Chinese women and sing the little mao song on May Day (direct quote). It sounded pretty good until “the little Mao song”. Japan is home of the racists, not China. China absorbs. They always have.
Just ask Tibetans, amirite?!?
>Japan is home of the racists, not China.
gmafb. China can give Japan lessons in racism. [and historically, probably did.] China absorbs alright; its neighbors’ land but not their culture.
Exactly. They absorb other peoples into Chinese culture. After a few generations their racial identity is gone. Japan seeks purity. Other races are tolerated only as slave labor. They should be importing young workers from Korea and the Philippines, but that would upset their order. China just absorbs them and makes their kids Chinese. Like America, but much smoother.
>It sounded pretty good until “the little Mao song”. Japan is home of the racists, not China. China absorbs. They always have.
Middle Kingdom Mentality argues against that. China has seen itself as the center of the Earth, with all outsiders as barbarians. Especially darker skinned people.
Condi Rice in ’05
Obama in 2016
https:/www.theguardian.com/world/2005/apr/16/china.usa
https:
/www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/04/barack-obama-deliberately-snubbed-by-chinese-in-chaoti
c-arrival-at-g20
R
A big part of the problem is that China would not be nearly this powerful now if they had not been granted MFN status by Clinton in alliance with Republicans in Congress. It is very hard to see a trade deal as a move against China when it is a free trade deal, opposed at the time by most of the Democratic Party, that enabled them to rise so fast in the first place, And that trade deal fulfilled the predictions of its skeptics, not its advocates.
So now the Clinton partnership is being given the reigns again, and we are to believe we need more corporate power to oppose China, whereas before we needed it to help China develop, which was supposedly going to create so many efficiencies we, too, would benefit, which we have in the form of dollar stores and such, but not overall.
Who was it that insisted TPP include a right of corporations to sue governments for lost revenue? I think the Asian players that might be sympathetic to that much corporate power – Japan, Singapore – are only sympathetic to it for their own corporations, not foreign ones. That is the most objectionable part of TPP, and it has our fingerprints all over it. The IP extensions, too, benefit US corporations more than others, though not necessarily the American people.
If Obama wanted a treaty to counter Chinese power, this is not the one he should have fought for, and he must have been the one fighting for it. It is comical to imagine anyone shoved it down our throats. This particular treaty, not the fact of seeking a treaty, is Obama’s third great mistake after supporting the overthrows of Gaddafi and Assad.
And bailing out the banks instead of the home owners.
Good point. Make that 4.
One problem is with the use of the words “elite” or “elites.
Here is a working, mainstream definition of the word “elite.”
And of “elites.”
The “elites” to which Booman is referring do not really match the first definition. They are not in any way “superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities” unless you consider their abilities to successfully deal with the greed, theft and bureaucratic mediocrity that have risen to dominance in the culture over the past 50+ years or so…nowhere else so plainly as in the Beltway/revolving door system.
Now…the second definition offers a little more clarity to the situation. (Emphasis mine.)”A group or class of persons considered to be superior to others because of their intelligence, social standing, or wealth” and “The best or most skilled members of a group.”
Now we’re getting somewhere!!!
So the ‘elites” that rule this country are by and large those who have either inherited social standing and wealth…witness Bush I and Bush II, Romney, Trump etc….or have shown such talent in the arts of big-time hustle and theft that they have risen to the top of the turd pool. (Witness the Clintons.) It’s largely the same in the military…a cheap hustler like Petraeus rises to the top while undoubtedly superior minds and hearts are halted somewhere in he middle of the career climb. In business? Ditto. Our big business is now predicated not so much on real achievement so much as on sheer profitability. The media? Please!!! Look at the flat-faced hustlers in the newsrooms and interview shows for all you need to know on that account. Education? Remember that old line?”Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. And those who can’t teach, teach teachers.” Our educational system is now run as a for-profit business by bureaucrats who can’t even teach teachers. It’s the same right on down the line in this culture.
Booman’s title is fine.
“The Collapse of American Elite Power”
But he fails to explain the reasons behind that collapse.
It’s because our “elites” are only elite at the hustle now.The U.S. is now all branding, all advertising and all hustle.
Booman finishes with a strong rhetorical salvo:
But it’s relatively empty of meaning…as is most rhetoric…because it assumes that “our elites” are really “elite” in the sense of the first definition I offered.
These people don’t “want the public’s trust again,” they just want them to surrender their existences to their will. Their sense of entitlement is so strong that they think they are invulnerable and damned near omniscient. They are not going to be “rebuilding our middle class and our hollowed out communities any way that they can,” because they are in reality so shallow, so stupid and so self-centered that they don’t realize the necessity of doing that for even their own benefit. They knew what they were doing when they ran the credit scams that led to the recession. They were hustling the rubes for profit. Nothing more and nothing less, although on a grander scale than in some W.C. Fields movie.
The “…appeal of Trump and the failure of the TPP” are of a piece. He’s on the anti-hustle hustle. It’s a brilliant piece of con-job, if you ask me.
“The American people have rescinded their faith in our leaders,” for damned good reason. And yes, the consequences of these “anti-elite” actions promise serious trouble. But writing that the elites “…should realize that they no longer have any choice but to put the American worker and the middle class first in their set of priorities.” is ludicrous. As long as the “elites” that ran the con up front are still in power…and I include both Clintons and the Wall St. interest for whom they work in that group…why would they try to “put the American worker and the middle class first in their set of priorities?” They’re the ones who collapsed those groups in the first place. That was their “choice.” They’re no smarter now than they were when the ran the game, number one, and number two…why would the newly awakened American people believe them even if they said that was their goal?
Really!!!
Why is Clinton so rapidly slip-sliding out of her front-runner status?
Because people do not believe her.
Duh.
She speaks with the forked tongue of the bankers.
DUH!!!
And we are going to suffer for it no matter who is elected.
Bet on it.
Later…
AG
Now a standalone post:
ELITES!!!??? I Got Yer Elites. Right Here!!!
Please go there if you wish to reply.
Thank you…
AG
“…The American people have rescinded their faith in our leaders….”
Such words! Hardly suitable for a throwaway afterthought. If you meant them, they must be your main thesis.
But as direful as your lines are, what reads between them is even worse. For there is no such thing as “the American people”. There are two camps, totally irreconcilable and unable to coexist or communicate. This situation is unprecedented and no one has seen a candid diagnosis of it, let alone a coherent approach to it. This sweeps every other consideration off the table; it is specifically irresponsible to engage any other topic until this one has been definitively solved.
…but you were saying something about China (as if anyone in Washington could find China on a globe if you gave them forty minutes and a jeweller’s loupe) ?
Unprecedented? The Civil war? Let’s do it again. America needs to be knocked on it’s butt.
Just kidding. Life is fine for me and everyone I know. The political media and the political class are nuts, but we really ought to all stop paying attention to them. It’s the political junkies who are making American hate again. Get a life!
All right – I will play.
1. American power is not collapsing in the Pacific. This is hyperbole. “Collapsed” is absurd.
There isn’t a country in the Pacific not profoundly dependent on access to US markets.
2. A good argument can be made that in fact the Pacific is notable in its stability. No one is invading anyone, and tensions along the borders are far lower than in other parts of the world.
One can get worked up about the South China Sea, but it isn’t the Japanese invading China. It isn’t Hitler at Munich.
Maybe, just maybe, there really isn’t a crisis here.
3. What I see is interdependence. The US could bring China to its knees in about 48 hours. If it did, it would hurt itself as well.
Example: the Tesla is made of 30% Chinese parts.
And that story could be told over and over. Global supply chains are intertwined all through the region.
And that is the real story. I think it is interdependence that has hurt the American Worker. But I don’t see a Pacific where US power and influence are collapsing.
I went to see if I could find what ordinary people in Japan or in the Philippines think about TPP.
My Google fu was lacking and I found no polls, but I did find that the reason the Philippines are not yet signing up for TPP:
“
With the Obama administration engaged in a “pivot” to Asia and China rebalancing in the region, integration has also accelerated in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Pro-US Filipinos hope to join the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in the next round of expansion. However, Aquino has failed to achieve a change in the constitution, which bans foreign companies from holding more than 40 per cent equity in some industrial sectors.”
http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1937539/can-next-philippine-president-keep-econo
my-growing
Maybe TPP isn’t that popular among the people in Asia either?
Surely, insofar as this would represent the shrinking of the American imperialist experiment, this is a great step forward towards the goal of socialism in one country?