By Jim Miller
A couple of weeks ago, Bill McKibben penned a very sharp editorial in the New York Times in response to the Obama administration’s choice to allow drilling in the Arctic noting that, “The Obama administration’s decision to give Shell Oil the go-ahead to drill in the Arctic shows why we may never win the fight against climate change. Even in this most extreme circumstance, no one seems able to stand up to the power of the fossil fuel industry. No one ever says no.”
Indeed, it is precisely this kind of political cowardice that may very well cost us far more dearly than we can imagine. In his defense, Obama went to Twitter and had little to offer other than red herrings and equivocation about the limitations of existing regulations.
But the bottom line could not be clearer: in the face of a stark moral choice, the President punted.
As McKibben points out, this behavior amounts to another kind of climate denialism, “This is not climate denial of the Republican sort, where people simply pretend the science isn’t real. This is climate denial of the status quo sort, where people accept the science, and indeed make long speeches about the immorality of passing on a ruined world to our children. They just deny the meaning of the science, which is that we must keep carbon in the ground.”
Score yet another one for corporate rule.
The TPP Debate: Labor Afflicts the Comfortable in Congress
The same lack of character can be seen in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) debate where the corporate Democrats that the President is hoping will join him in throwing labor and the environment under the bus are feeling the heat and are not happy about it. According to Politico some (mostly anonymous) Democrats find it distasteful to be held accountable by the folks who worked to elect them in the first place. In their version of events, labor’s forceful anti-TPP campaign amounts to political bullying:
The AFL-CIO was blunt in the call that went out to Rep. Scott Peters, a Democrat who represents San Diego: Vote yes on fast-track authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, people familiar with the conversation recall, and they’d spend a million dollars to knock him out in next year’s primary. If he managed to win, they’d drop another million against him in the general election.
The real fight over the trade agenda has always been in the House, and that’s where organized labor has been focusing for months. The aggressive effort has left even members who’ll be voting labor’s way bruised, and others who’ll be supporting President Barack Obama anxious enough that many won’t discuss their experiences publicly, instead dispatching staffers to speak on their behalf.
“They were very heavy-handed. And it was not appreciated. And it will not be forgotten,” said one Democratic staffer for a member who will be voting no on trade, as the unions want.
The same piece quotes a number of political insiders either belittling opposition efforts as “bluster” or chastising critics for not being “responsible” and acting like someone who’s had “one drink too many.” Apparently, in some quarters, when labor ceases to be a compliant ATM machine for politicians who betray American workers after happily accepting union support, they have crossed the line and their actions are “not in good taste.”
Clearly, in this case, the barbarians are at the gates.
The Death of Citizenship?
And perhaps some of the unruly rabble is upset because they know that the TPP is really more about increasing corporate control than trade. As the founder of WikiLeaks recently argued, this secret deal is about, “erecting and embedding new, ultramodern neoliberal structure in U.S. law and in the laws of the other countries that are participating” that will chill the enactment of labor, health, and environmental regulations that benefit ordinary citizens while granting more power to multinational corporations.
But, of course, this is just more of the same process that has been eroding our democracy for decades. As Bill Fletcher, Jr. argues in “Neoliberalism has Created a New System of Dual Citizenship for the Poor and the 1%,” while marginalized communities still have formal rights many have come to “see little advantage in political and/or civic participation” because “their situation is so depressed that the existence of their formal political rights are almost meaningless.”
Trade deals like the TPP are part of this in that, “Neo-liberal globalization is experienced by masses of people as taking away the decision-making power from the local or even national levels and investing control and/or veto power, in supra-national formations, e.g., NAFTA.”
Thus it is not just job loss or the undermining of labor or environmental regulations that is at stake, but the power of ordinary citizens to control their democracy and their lives.
According to Fletcher, the global elite does not see the death of traditional democratic citizenship as a crisis as long as it remains “manageable”:
The neo-liberal world is a world of vast inequalities. In the last several years the matter of economic inequality has received significant attention. Yet the neo-liberal world contains other forms of inequality, not the least being between the citizen and the sub-citizen. The inequalities exist on multiple levels including relationship to the police; housing; education; employment; and healthcare.
The existence of these inequalities is largely considered collateral damage by the elite; acceptable losses, in certain respects, in an otherwise healthy socio-economic system.
Thus, the dystopias predicted in science fiction are not seen as catastrophic in any real sense as long as the situation is managed or manageable.
Hence, entrenched inequality and environmental degradation are seen as acceptable trade-offs for the short-term profit of the elites. So as long as the real costs can be conveniently externalized, that’s how the game is going to be played.
In Fletcher’s estimation, the beleaguered labor movement can still play a key “anti-dystopian” role against the “the neoliberal nightmare”:
Labor unions are an instrument to struggle against sub-citizenship which, in many respects, constitutes part of the explanation as to why they are being viciously attacked.
Neo-liberal capital needs the sub-citizen category not only as a source for increasing their profits, but also as a means of eliminating or reducing the size of the relevant population (thereby reducing the demand for the provision of social and human services to huge segments of society).
That’s a good reason to side with the barbarians.
A Character Defining Moment
I have written at length about the politics with regard to TPP here, here, and here, but what strikes me most about the TPP debate is that it is a character defining moment.
This political spectacle illustrates how the clear political choices on the great moral questions of our age—whether we will continue to pave the way for ever more entrenched corporate rule that undermines our democracy and murders the future in the process–are being answered as if they are merely matters of legislative technicality by those who should know better.
When the moment demands decisiveness and bold vision, too many Prufrocks in the White House and the halls of Congress tell us that there will be “time yet for a hundred indecisions/And for a hundred visions and revisions.”
And, as with the speaker in the great T.S. Eliot poem, their actions show us that:
No! I am not Prince Hamlet, nor was meant to be;
Am an attendant lord, one that will do
To swell a progress, start a scene or two,
Advise the prince; no doubt, an easy tool,
Deferential, glad to be of use,
Politic, cautious, and meticulous;
Full of high sentence, but a bit obtuse;
At times, indeed, almost ridiculous—
Almost, at times, the Fool.
Here’s hoping enough of our leaders in Congress can summon the courage to finally say no.
99% of us are outliers.
In the interest of brevity in comments, I have submitted my response to this in the form of a separate- but linked- essay.
I’ve asked Doug Porter to review it- hopefully before he departs on vacation.
The TPP really is about countering China’s initiative: the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. China is moving towards a relationship with other countries that would bring them into China’s political and economic sphere. Hence the “Trans Pacific Partnership” which seeks to guarantee US and Western hegemony over the world economic and monetary system. It’s a rivalry between Chinese values and liberal American values as espoused by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. China is arguably the world’s largest economy taking over that position from the US. The TPP is nothing other than the US counter to Chinese hegemony which seeks to maintain western capitalist economic values.
The link to Bill Fletcher Jr.’s sorry seems broken. Try here: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/neoliberalism-has-created-new-system-dual-citizenship-poor-and-1
Thank you Doug for keeping us up to date on this piece of trash aka TPP
I replaced the link.
Oops, sorry Jim. I found this story from a twitter link posted by Doug. SDFP is doing a great job keeping us up to date on this topic.
I agree with Jim Miller that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a character defining moment of whether one stands with the elite or the masses. Representatives like Scott Peters, who ran for office against a real conservative in Carl DeMaio in this swing district, saying that he was a champion of the 99%, need to put up or shut up on fast tracking the TPP through Congress with no amendments and very limited hearings and debate. Susan Davis, who cast one of the deciding votes in favor of NAFTA, needs also to show her true colors on the vote for fast tracking the TPP through Congress. It is unclear how Rep. Juan Vargas stands on this matter, as well!
Those politicians (I use the word less than respectfully here) that vote with the 1% on this issue have no sense of right and wrong.
NAFTA exported hundreds of thousands of jobs. So far, documents released, show that TPP will IMPORT weaker law, weaker protections, and continue the march to reduce what’s needed to change our growing inequality. Susan Davis relied on and got labor’s support BEFORE she cast the passing VOTE for NAFTA. Will she do it again on the TPP?
President Obama makes it easier for me to face the future without his leadership. TPP and his likely drift into accepting Keystone pipeline diminish his greatness for me. The only thing that I can imagine that makes him go against even his own nature to support TPP so desperately is perhaps his own plan for re-entry to private sector. I didn’t see him as one who’d rush to feather his own nest, at the expense of the public good, but I guess “carpetbagging” in federal positions is so contagious it may now be a rite of passage, expected if one wants to be respected among the powers that be and the movers and shakers, and the Obama’s may not be so exceptional after all.
“… the Obama’s may not be so exceptional after all.” It appears he was slick enough to last this long, like that other guy from Hope, Arkansas, who pushed through NAFTA. And slick only works on people who aren’t paying attention. Their success is our fault.
I’m with Bernie.
I lost respect for and left the Democratic Party after Barack Obama broke another in a long list of promises. He said that he supported the Employee Free Choice Act and he did less than nothing to help it pass. His tenure in office is a series of broken promises and disappointments. The only reason we elected a self-proclaimed “liberal” (BO is NOT!) is because of the failed Bush Presidency. The Obama Presidency has also been a failure. Maybe this time we will be able to elected a TRUE progressive?