Sunday, December 14, 2003
Howard Dean, Unilateralist? (Gasp! Horror!): Check out this interview with Howard Dean. Note the dangerous "go-it-alone" rhetoric of imperialism:
"What kind of rules would you introduce to stop corporations moving jobs abroad, as you keep criticizing?
[Dean:] Well, you can't just stop corporations. You have got to make the rules fair if they do it. I believe that globalization is inevitable. But I believe that all we've done is globalized the rules for multinational corporations. We haven't universalized, or in this case globalized, working rights. So if this is a global economy, we're going to have to have the same labor standards, en--vironmental standards and human-rights standards. We have to start incorporating those in every trade agreement and go back and revise the trade agreements that we have.
If they won't incorporate them?
[Dean:] If they won't incorporate them, then probably we aren't going to be able to continue to import their products. Because we're essentially subsidizing their economy. Now I'm a convert to this. [Dick] Gephardt correctly points out that I supported China's admission to the WTO, and NAFTA. The reason my position has altered is because I've seen what's happened to the Midwest in this country. It is shocking. Small towns losing their one factory. "
Can there be a better example of extremist, capitalist-imperialist swill? "Globalization is inevitable"! And don't get me started on that nonsense about "universalized/globalized" environmental standards and (ach!) "human-rights" standards! What makes him think that he knows what "right" is! Talk about hubris!
Sarcasm aside, Dr. Dean does seem to be setting forth some unilateralist agenda in trade. After all, the US would seem to be deciding what appropriate standards are (perhaps in conjunction with a "coalition of the willing," but we would still have final authority) and punishing those countries which do not meet them through not importing their products. He even would tamper with one of the supposed icons of the supposed "left;" international agreements. Not that I think "unilateralism" is necessarily a bad thing (the groupthought-tendencies of "multi-lateralism" (oh political rhetoric!) might give a number of people some pause), but Dr. Dean and a number of his fellow would-be contenders seem to criticize the Bush administration for the same thing, albeit in a different theater (military). However, so far we have seen little open recognition or discussion of the proper uses of multi-lateralism vs. unilateralism from these individuals (and, yes, I know about all the politics of the matter, but I can't keep my foolish curiosity in check all the time). Such a clarification would certainly be very helpful and worthwhile. I'm keeping my eyes open.....
"What kind of rules would you introduce to stop corporations moving jobs abroad, as you keep criticizing?
[Dean:] Well, you can't just stop corporations. You have got to make the rules fair if they do it. I believe that globalization is inevitable. But I believe that all we've done is globalized the rules for multinational corporations. We haven't universalized, or in this case globalized, working rights. So if this is a global economy, we're going to have to have the same labor standards, en--vironmental standards and human-rights standards. We have to start incorporating those in every trade agreement and go back and revise the trade agreements that we have.
If they won't incorporate them?
[Dean:] If they won't incorporate them, then probably we aren't going to be able to continue to import their products. Because we're essentially subsidizing their economy. Now I'm a convert to this. [Dick] Gephardt correctly points out that I supported China's admission to the WTO, and NAFTA. The reason my position has altered is because I've seen what's happened to the Midwest in this country. It is shocking. Small towns losing their one factory. "
Can there be a better example of extremist, capitalist-imperialist swill? "Globalization is inevitable"! And don't get me started on that nonsense about "universalized/globalized" environmental standards and (ach!) "human-rights" standards! What makes him think that he knows what "right" is! Talk about hubris!
Sarcasm aside, Dr. Dean does seem to be setting forth some unilateralist agenda in trade. After all, the US would seem to be deciding what appropriate standards are (perhaps in conjunction with a "coalition of the willing," but we would still have final authority) and punishing those countries which do not meet them through not importing their products. He even would tamper with one of the supposed icons of the supposed "left;" international agreements. Not that I think "unilateralism" is necessarily a bad thing (the groupthought-tendencies of "multi-lateralism" (oh political rhetoric!) might give a number of people some pause), but Dr. Dean and a number of his fellow would-be contenders seem to criticize the Bush administration for the same thing, albeit in a different theater (military). However, so far we have seen little open recognition or discussion of the proper uses of multi-lateralism vs. unilateralism from these individuals (and, yes, I know about all the politics of the matter, but I can't keep my foolish curiosity in check all the time). Such a clarification would certainly be very helpful and worthwhile. I'm keeping my eyes open.....
More Reflections: Matt Drudge rightly links to Peggy Noonan's essay in The Wall Street Journal; it shows a sensitive and humanistic optimism. Bravo, Ms. Noonan, especially on that conclusion!
Also via Drudge, check out the pieces in Time and Newsweek about Saddam's capture.
Also via Drudge, check out the pieces in Time and Newsweek about Saddam's capture.
Ravaged and Haggard: Not a bad essay by Lee Harris about the aesthetic effects of the bearded Saddam. I appreciate his cautiously limited optimism:
"That is the problem of living through history, rather than reading about it when it is over. What at first appears a triumph may be just a prelude to disaster; what at first seems a failure may prove to be merely a necessary step toward a final success. The capture of Saddam Hussein may not prove to be the turning point when, decades from now, we look back on this period; but, for right now, it certainly feels like it. "
Our views are often limited between the waves of history. However, we should keep trying, and the difficulty of making judgments about success or failure need not dispel our obligation to try our hardest to know and do what is right.
"That is the problem of living through history, rather than reading about it when it is over. What at first appears a triumph may be just a prelude to disaster; what at first seems a failure may prove to be merely a necessary step toward a final success. The capture of Saddam Hussein may not prove to be the turning point when, decades from now, we look back on this period; but, for right now, it certainly feels like it. "
Our views are often limited between the waves of history. However, we should keep trying, and the difficulty of making judgments about success or failure need not dispel our obligation to try our hardest to know and do what is right.
Change is in the air: Well, as you (and it probably is a single reader by now) can see, I've made some changes to this little part of the 'sphere. A comments section has been added for your egalitarian, democratic pleasure. Also, the links have been changed a little bit. And maybe (just maybe!) I'll be making more of an appearance after a few technical trials and tribulations.
All the best,
Calidore.
All the best,
Calidore.
GOT HIM! What a great and proud day for Iraq! What a wonder for all the world! The nobility of the action and the heroism of the actors is startling and wondrous. The celebrations of the people of Iraq at the capture of their former oppressor is truly moving. To see the bliss of their triumph! Oh happy day!
