TIME TO TRY SOMETHING NEW

Let me be clear.  I have a love-hate relationship with social media.  On the one hand, I think the proliferation of Facebook, twitter, internet news sites and blogs has encouraged many individuals, not otherwise inclined, to become more active in politics by choosing sides and expressing opinions.  But, on the other hand, social media has opened and intensified a partisan animosity which often make rational and reasonable arguments impossible.

It is not that the poison pen has not existed throughout history when it comes to biting political rhetoric. Consider this opinion from a conservative in the early 19^th century, not pleased with the socialist, George Bernard Shaw, who was against England’s involvement in the first World War: “The hag sedition was your mother and perversity begot you. Mischief was your midwife, and misrule your nurse. You are a freakish homunculus, germinated outside of lawful procreation.” The author, Henry Arthur Jones truly gave some thought before publishing this elegant way of calling his political adversary a bastard.

Consider also Cicero and his scathing attacks against his opponents in the Roman Senate.  Both his writings and his oratory left no political adversary unscathed.  Lastly, consider the inflammatory pamphlets circulated before and during the American and French Revolutions.  The content was not only scandalous against the ruling monarchies, it was treasonous and came with a death sentence if the phamphleters were arrested.

The difference, between then and now, is that prior to the internet, biting political opinion was accompanied by background information that supported the opinion.  Moreover, many days would pass between the time a thought was developed, pen was put to paper, the publication of the written material and ultimately the distribution to the public of a partisan point of view.

Today, the 280 characters permitted by twitter can release an opinion to the world without much thought and with little factual basis to support the assertions.  Sound bites are re-posted millions of times with no supporting documentation.  Images are photo shopped to make a point that has little to do with the original image.  Social media participants are being made angry and returning fire, based on emotion, with little or no fact based research or time for reflection to consider their positions.

 Our problem is not that citizens disagree and argue.  Red Sox fans will never become Yankees fans no matter what facts are placed before them.  Republicans are not likely to become Democrats simply because the latter are upset over comments made by a Republican President. The problem is the tone and quality of our interactions, made worse by the speed and content of social media and by cable news.

I was intrigued by a recent essay in the Wall Street Journal: To Get Along Better We Need Better Arguments by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, professor of ethics at Duke University (WSJ 7/14/18).  The author’s thoughts are a summary of his new book: Think Again, How to Reason and Argue.

The professor starts from the premise that: “if your primary goal in arguing is just to stir up people who already agree with you, you might be happy to use rhetorical tricks.”  He recognizes that “not every audience will listen to reason” but that if we want to improve our political climate: “good arguments can help a lot when presented in the right way.”

The essay points out three qualities to develop good arguments: “be candid”, “be respectful” and “be patient.” A candid speaker or writer will spell out assumptions that are not facts and carefully articulate each premise leading up to a conclusion.  Respect is gained through rational conflict that recognizes the established facts made by the opponent.  Patience abhors twitter and sound bites.  It recognizes that a rational argument takes time and work to develop.  Listening and then responding to the opponent is an important part of the process.

Sometimes to be credible it is important for the commentator to walk the walk.  This would be one of those times. Accordingly, I propose a formal (or Parliamentary-style) debate challenge, with the Observer Reporter providing the political topic, the Judges and choosing a location accessible to the public.  There would be two debaters on each team representing the conservative and progressive positions.  Following the debate there would be a discussion with the audience.  I volunteer to be one of the members of the progressive team.

I am not sure anyone would show up to listen or that the public cares to participate in a formal debate where facts matter.  I do know that it cannot be detrimental to try something new.  Dave Ball, are you listening?

DEMOCRATS MUST DEVELOP A COHERENT TRADE POLICY

Democrats missed the boat when it came to trade policy as an issue in the 2016 Presidential campaign. Donald Trump sealed an election victory by forcefully coming out against trade agreements and winning the support of Midwestern states devastated by the loss of its manufacturing base. This was contrasted with Hillary Clinton who argued that lost industrial jobs were gone for good but that the information age would create opportunities elsewhere in the economy.  Affected voters saw these new opportunities as a pipe dream and voted for the candidate who promised to bring the jobs back to their communities.

 Now, Democrats are losing yet another opportunity to make fair trade an issue in the 2018 mid-term elections.  President Trump, in an attempt to make good on his campaign promise, has begun to attack nations, friend and foe alike, in the name of fair trade. Democrats are sitting back and hoping that trade wars will upset the financial markets and anger enough farmers who have seen their produce slapped with tariffs, to work against Republican candidates. This approach is short sighted and demonstrates the lack of a long term strategy to formulate a lasting policy based on equality and justice.

Ironically, Republicans have traditionally been the bastion of free trade which on the whole favors capital at the expense of labor.  Corporations would prefer to utilize all global markets in building and distributing products, to maximize profit.  For this reason, the National Chamber of Commerce, a major Trump supporter on tax cuts and a campaign contributor has launched a campaign against his trade policy. 

But Trump has hitched his wagon to a populist ‘America First” view that anti free trade and anti-immigration policies are the key to maintaining his base and winning elections.  Traditional Republican objections will be futile as long as Trump controls the party messaging and apparatus.

Historically, Democrats were the party that sought to limit the negative aspects of free trade.  Since the FDR presidency, Democrats have followed the principle that it is a fundamental responsibility of government to ensure that a free market is managed in such a way as to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people.  Somehow this view began to lose its importance as liberals seemed to downplay labor interests and to support globalization. 

In its eagerness to leave the industrial age behind and to enter the information age, the Democratic party forgot that many of its blue collar supporters were also being left behind.  Instead, identity politics with the view that struggling Americans could only be labeled as minorities or female or non-heterosexuals or the disabled and did not include healthy white males dominated the 2016 campaign. Bernie Sanders was an outlier on this view and was roundly criticized by liberals during the Democratic Primary for proposing that the party adopt protectionist policies that favored blue collar workers.

The Democratic Party must not make this mistake again. What is needed is a new paradigm in setting trade policies that achieve two goals: (1) build and maintain a strong middle class; (2) serve and strengthen U.S. foreign policy. In a recent Foreign Affairs article, “A Trade Policy for All” (June 26, 2018), two Vanderbilt Law School professors, Timothy Meyer and Ganesh Sitaraman offer what appears to me a responsible starting point.

The premise of the article is that liberalizing markets should be a means, not an end. The authors point out that tariffs are simply taxes on imported goods, economically beneficial to certain groups and detrimental to others.  They offer sound statistical evidence that from 1988 through 2008 free trade agreements overwhelming favored the corporate elite and middle classes in emerging markets at the expenses of the middle classes in advanced economies.  During this period the American middle class stagnated.  The conclusion is that these economic imbalances must be recognized and addressed, head on.

What is to be done in formulating a responsible trade policy?  First, take existing programs and fund them properly.  The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program has been around since 1962 to retrain and help relocate displaced workers.  It has never been given priority status and has been labeled “burial insurance” by labor unions.

Second, trade agreements themselves need to address the imbalance between winners and losers within each agreement. Taxes can be imbedded in regional trade agreements such as NAFTA with the proceeds going directly to the communities negatively affected by each treaty.

Third, for other free trade agreements that overwhelmingly benefit multi- national corporations, an appropriate tax must be applied that goes directly to subsidize those national industries that suffer from an open trade environment.

Like so many of President Trump’s executive decisions, his implementation of trade policy is misplaced and dangerous. Trying to bully other political elites into dropping tariffs, which will in turn threaten their own political constituencies, is a fool’s game and is contrary to international law and order.  Creating new tariffs by haphazardly throwing mud at the wall and seeing what sticks will hurt as many Americans as it helps.  Moreover, such a “bull in the china shop” approach unravels the fabric of political alliances that have taken decades to weave together.

There is a better way forward.  Trade policy is the province of Congress.  The U.S. Constitution grants the legislative branch authority to regulate international trade including establishing tariffs, drafting and implementing trade agreements, and other provisions affecting commerce within the United States. The House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have primary congressional jurisdiction on trade matters.

The Democratic Party must make it clear to the voters that a fair and lasting trade policy will be a top priority once their members obtain a majority in Congress. They must articulate a trade policy that taxes the winners to help subsidize the losers within the terms of each Agreement.  In short: “A Trade Policy for All.”