By Judith Gayle | Political Waves
This is a week in which we’ve seen encouraging progress on important issues: the withdrawal of the Comcast/Time Warner merger after receiving heavy scrutiny from the FCC; the approval of our first black female Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, after over five months of stonewalling; the Supremes smacking down voting rights discrimination in North Carolina.
The passage of the Human Trafficking bill came with less enthusiastic applause from the left. Held up due to questions of abortion for trafficking victims, the Dems relented when a secondary funding stream was established that was not subject to Hyde Amendment restrictions (monies collected from fines, not taxes). Let’s call this one a draw, but a win, at least in terms of allowing a vote for Lynch.
Despite these advances, this has been a tough week for Obama, who went public with the death of two hostages killed during a drone strike on an al Qaeda compound. This was a CIA black-op in Pakistan, successful in targeting ‘bad guys’ but with insufficient intelligence about the ‘good ones’ being held in the encampment. Obama held a briefing, apologizing to the families of the hostages, one American, one Italian, but with no mention of the deaths of two other Americans-gone-rogue — al Qaeda operatives — killed by U.S. military in January, one in this operation.
This has drawn attention back to our use of drones crossing international borders in search of terrorists, once more spotlighting our everlasting gobstopper of a WOT (war on terror). While it seems a chilling process, it takes a collection of these reports in order to get our attention, and even more disheartening, a collective public outcry to impact the policy. Add another chalk mark on the wall then, for public debate about drones (rather than boots on the ground), which despite being at question ethically, have become a recruitment tool for Islamic radicals. And that doesn’t begin to account for the national shame of ‘collateral damage,’ arguably in the thousands.
While Obama announced that he took full responsibility for the deaths of these innocents, he has also taken personal responsibility for an argument that has erupted between him and the Progressive Caucus, including many Dems who fall into the moderate camp. They have endured what Senator Sherrod Brown called an “unprecedented” “full-court press” from the administration to wave through fast track legislation on the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal (TPP). This has caused a donnybrook between that champion of progressive fiscal policy, Elizabeth Warren, and the Prez. And as it turns out, it’s highly personal.
A bit of background: the TPP is a pending trade agreement, five years in the making, between nearly a dozen Asian Pacific nations, including Japan, Mexico, Vietnam and Australia. Obama is dedicated to achieving this agreement, nailing down the rules that keep Chinese dominance at bay while protecting intellectual property, among other things, but there are serious questions about how this will play out in our brave new 21st century. Unfortunately, negotiations have been accomplished far from public scrutiny and with the help of corporate lobbyists and Wall Street savants.
Here’s Katrina vanden Heuvel of “The Nation” to define that process:
The TPP is a classic expression of the way the rules are fixed to benefit the few and not the many. It has been negotiated in secret, but 500 corporations and banks sit on advisory committees with access to various chapters. The lead negotiator, Michael Froman, was a protégé of former Treasury secretary Robert Rubin, and followed him from Treasury to Citibank, the bank whose excesses helped blow up the economy before it had to be bailed out. Although corporations are wired in, the American people are locked out of the TPP negotiations. And, as Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said, “Members of Congress and their staff have an easier time accessing national security documents than proposed trade deals, but if I were negotiating this deal I suppose I wouldn’t want people to see it either.”
Corporations have their fingers in this pie because of their inclusion on U.S. Trade Representative advisory panels. Corporate reps number about 500, while another hundred slots are set aside for (less fiscally influential) representatives of organized labor, environmental and other groups that have interest in global economic affairs. All are pledged to secrecy.
About two years ago we began to hear murmurs about these negotiations, at about the same time that income inequality became apparent as a defining political issue. We know how this works: these big issues hide in plain sight until enough people take notice to bloom into full-fledged public awareness. One of the first to give a warning shout was Florida Rep, Alan Grayson, who pursued the secretive negotiation documents after examining a leaked document in 2012 that put liberals on alert.
Grayson is a fearless progressive, a plain-spoken man who was primaried and beaten by a Bagger in 2010 but returned to the House in 2012. After examining documents of the TPP draft, he fired the first warning shot about the trade deal that got my attention. Said Grayson, in 2013:
“What I saw was nothing that could possibly justify the secrecy that surrounds it. It is ironic in a way that the government thinks it’s alright to have a record of every single call that an American makes, but not alright for an American citizen to know what sovereign powers the government is negotiating away.” […]
“Having seen what I’ve seen, I would characterize this as a gross abrogation of American sovereignty. And I would further characterize it as a punch in the face to the middle class of America. I think that’s fair to say from what I’ve seen so far. But I’m not allowed to tell you why!”
Coming up to speed, the negotiations have matured over the ensuing months, but information about the resulting deal is still scarce as hen’s teeth. A fast track option would give Obama authority to make the deal without congressional discussion or amendment, requiring only an up/down vote. One would think this to be unpopular with Pubs, but evidently not. As long as corporate needs are being served, to hell with their commitment to oversight.
Dems, on the other hand, are taking fits, as illustrated by Harry Reid’s comment on the topic: “Not only no, but hell no.” Ditto Nancy Pelosi, but in more elegant lady-terms, demurring on the “disappointing” bill — known as Trade Promotion Authority — proposed by two Pubs (Ryan and Hatch) and Oregon Dem, Ron Wyden, while “looking for a path to yes.” But it was Elizabeth Warren who defined the progressive position.
“Before we sign on to rush through a deal like that – no amendments, no delays, no ability to block a bad bill – the American people should get to see what’s in it,” said the senator. Privy to the particulars, the Dems question if the trade deal will, in fact, provide increase in economic objectives that boost the economy and provide jobs, as advertised, or instead exacerbate income inequality.
No longer trusting the plutocracy, the left “want obligations written into the law that trading partners must live up to, not just objectives.” Warren suggested that Obama seemed to be deliberately hiding the facts from the public, adding, “If the American people would be opposed to a trade agreement if they saw it, then that agreement should not become the law of the United States.”
Obama expressed his frustration with the process of herding the rowdy Dems into his corner on this project, having asked them to trust him and his record for middle-class advocacy. It was at that point that he called dissenters wrong on the facts, saying “I would not be putting this forward if I was not absolutely certain that this was gonna be good for American workers.” We got a taste of that Leo temperament of his when he added, “When people say that this trade deal is bad for working families, they don’t know what they’re talking about. I take that personally. My entire presidency has been about helping working families.”
OK. Now, pardon me if I stop a moment to ponder the emotion behind those words. I’m not a starry-eyed Obama supporter. Neither am I painting this administration with a “dark and dismal” brush, or one wearing a “happy face” either — I just want to know what changed, what Obama sees that I don’t and why he says Elizabeth Warren doesn’t know what she’s talking about. I’d like to hear Obama’s actual argument for it, not the rhetoric that gets repeated over and over, reported by the talking heads. And while we’re at it, I’d like to know what other coercive secrets lie behind the TPP curtain.
I know what establishment politics is about, but those words — “I take that personally,” –hit a different chord than, say, when George W. defended his positions by calling himself “the Decider,” or when Rummy held forth on the “known unknowns” or even when Big Bill attempted to re-write the definition of sex by rethinking what “is” is. Obama’s statement feels very real to me. He seems to feel as though he’s putting his reputation on the line with this agreement, which on its face looks too flawed for a progressive to support.
Politics is the process by which the people we hire, by vote, bring balance to our financial, cultural and international relations. Their efforts design the world we inhabit today and will live in tomorrow. Obama is taking his vision for America personally, and — as he’s changed that view on trade from the one he campaigned on long ago — he must have a reason to be pounding the pulpit so strongly. Some would say we’ve already seen that presidential turnabout, i.e., betrayal, in troops sent here or there, drone strikes and matters of national security, but that feels different to me. Being shoved around by the complexity of the military-industrial complex as elected-savior of the world has a different flavor, entirely.
Me, I’m taking these politics personally as well. I believe that we no longer live in that insular world where we can do without one another, globally, nor do I think the politics of this age have much in common with those Bill Clinton wrestled when he gave us a trade agreement that has proven so detrimental. Trade agreements are a necessity, as are allies in a dangerously fractured civilization, and by and large, when we look back, we will note that Barack Obama has changed the trajectory of this nation and the way we do business on a global stage. But what my progressive leaders say reflects my portion of this process. While Obama steers the ship of state on a different course, my job — and yours — is to keep him honest.
What we really need now is a lot of sunshine, showing up in politics and culture and business, as well as in our relationships, our work experience, our inner dialogue. We need clarity, and if we look at what is — not dwell on what was or what might be — we can catch glimmers of the essential facts that describe us. Offering a helping hand, the universe seems to be demanding truth as well, creating glitches and gaffes that pull back the curtains and reveal reality, even if some of us choose to look away. There must be other shoes to fall in this matter of trade, and as we all live with the result of NAFTA, Obama is going to have to pony up some proof that TPP has more to offer than “more of the same.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is only one of many groups advocating against this treaty, their interest primarily environmental. With 40 percent of the world’s economy at stake, and many undeveloped areas at risk, the NRDC point to leaked documents that propose giving multinational companies the right to sue the federal government if environmental laws impede their profits. And polluters would press their claims in trade tribunals, behind closed doors and far from public scrutiny. “The Nation” piece, above, details examples.
You can sign their petition against the fast track agreement here, although this legislation is moving through committee quickly due to GOP approval. If you are seriously interested in making your voice heard, contact your legislators (here) and let them know how you feel about fast tracking an agreement constructed in secret, influenced by corporations and bankers. Let them know you want sunshine on this process and the details of the agreement itself. If you are interested in other activist opportunities, Google “TPP Fast Track activism.”
Politics can’t get much more personal than jobs and bank accounts and growing inequality, than assaults to our mutual environment. Those reading this, living the result of political decisions of the past, can surely attest. As Joe Biden would tell us, the TPP is a BFD. It’s time to take this VERY personally.
