Speaking of Manifestos
[posted by Callimachus]
Daniel Drezner notes a James Galbraith essay in The Nation urging progressives to "move on" on the issue of globalization and fight the good fight on the new field, rather than trying to turn back clocks (that probably were manufactured in Malaysia).
Galbraith writes:
Drezner finds Galbraith's last line a little too rosy.
Still, though, he (and I) think this would be a wise change of tactics. "Given the current standards of trade discourse," he adds, "...I should shut up and just encourage all progressives to read Galbraith." It will be difficult for national-level Democratic politicians to follow, however, because of the party's ties to what's left of the labor unions. Which traditionally have been deeply conservative forces in America.
Daniel Drezner notes a James Galbraith essay in The Nation urging progressives to "move on" on the issue of globalization and fight the good fight on the new field, rather than trying to turn back clocks (that probably were manufactured in Malaysia).
Galbraith writes:
The facts are clear: NAFTA is a done deal, and China is a success story we have to live with. Progressives need a trade narrative that moves past these two issues. Broadly, this means accepting manufactured imports and dropping the idea that we can control--or that it matters much--who assembles television sets or stitches shirts. Standards to guard against flagrant abuses such as child and prison labor are fine, but it's an illusion to think they will, or should, dent the flow of goods from China. A progressive trade agenda should focus, instead, on building stronger world markets for our exports, and in ways that do not trample on the needs and rights of poor people in poor countries. That should provide plenty of room for future fights with free-trade absolutists.
Drezner finds Galbraith's last line a little too rosy.
The problem is that there is plenty of room for division within Galbraith's forumlation of the progressive trade agenda: "building stronger world markets for our exports, and in ways that do not trample on the needs and rights of poor people in poor countries." The former requires enforcing intellectual property rights, because they are at the root of much of what the United States currently exports. Progressives, however, would no doubt argue that the latter requires dropping IPR enforcement altogether.
Still, though, he (and I) think this would be a wise change of tactics. "Given the current standards of trade discourse," he adds, "...I should shut up and just encourage all progressives to read Galbraith." It will be difficult for national-level Democratic politicians to follow, however, because of the party's ties to what's left of the labor unions. Which traditionally have been deeply conservative forces in America.
Labels: globalization
