RSS 2.0 FeedLou Dobbs, Enemy of the People
by KevinUnfortunately in America, there is a new tide of xenophobia, protectionism, and ultra-nationalism rising. This tide of populism helped to catapult Democrats like Jim Webb and Republicans like Tom Tancredo to national prominence as they denounce everything foreign. Even so-called libertarians like Ron Paul have gotten in on the act. The public face of this new populist nationalism though is Lou Dobbs.
This new wave of populist nationalism is nothing more than Buchanite paleo-conservatism dressed up and lipstick has been placed on this pig to bring it into the twenty-first century. Already, these new populists have nearly sunk CAFTA and a free trade agreement with Vietnam, that fortunately will pass Friday. In addition, xenophobes like Dobbs and Tancredo stand in the way of a solution of the illegal immigration problem. Both free trade and a free as possible movment of people across national borders lowers the price of goods and services and raises the standard of living for most people in a nation. Also, free trade does more to increase diplomatic relations between the United States and other nations than any other action America does. Finally, as countries open their nations to outside goods, services, and more importantly ideas; those nations will be come more freer.
To call Lou Dobbs the enemy of the people is not an overstatement if viewed in the proper context. Lou Dobbs stands in the way of cheaper goods that benefit all Americans. Lou Dobbs stands in the way of more and higher paying jobs as more foreign investment comes to America as a result of trade. Lou Dobbs stands in the way of immigrants and the promise and abilities they bring to America. We must stand up to these populists.
It’s time to start educating about trade, immigration, and opening up our nation. All three things bring benefits to our nation.
Free markets and trade are foundations of Liberty, but the examples cited here are perverse. CAFTA is NOT about free trade, but undermines American rule of law and ‘rigs the game’ to benefit the wealthiest of the wealthy. Our global marketplace is not a free and open market, rather it is profoundly distorted by fiat monies and twisted, militaristic political and energy relationships. How else do vegetables ship half way round the world, use enormous amounts of energy in production and transit, and still undermine local farmers? Perverse. The ‘captains’ of industry have captured and perverted the American experiment, and America is their ATM. Now a call for rule of law is xenophobia?
Comment by Stephen Blackwell — December 8, 2006 @ 5:47 amStephen,
I’m guessing your one of these “libertarians” who’s against free trade, people getting wealthy, and legal immigration.
What evidence do you have that CAFTA undermines the rule of law and American soverignty and “rigs the game”?
I’ll cede your point about the unfree global marketplace, but the answer is to make it more free either through worldwide trade talks like the Doha round or bi-lateral agreements like the one approved today with Vietnam or multi-lateral trade agreements like CAFTA.
As for your ramblings about “fiat money”, what difference does it make if two individuals decide to use gold or even Monopoly play money as a medium of exchange? The major reason why we have a common currency is because the state needs a medium of exchange to collect taxes.
I also love how you claim to talk about free markets meanwhile complain how the “big multinationals” undermine local farmers without looking at the whole picture. Orwell would be very proud.
Finally, it is xenophobia and outright racism when you seem to have a problem with just the Mexican border and want to do nothing about the Canadian border and visa violations.
Comment by Kevin — December 8, 2006 @ 8:23 pmThe above postings are erroneous in claiming tha Congress ratified a “trade agreement” with Vietnam. This did not happen. The vote that occured friday eveniing was just a vote to eliminate the annual jackson-vanik vote in Congress on two way trade between Vietnam and the U.S.. The vote simply “normalized” trading relations with Vietnam (Congress took this same approach with China a few years ago when it abandoned the annual jackson-vanik vote on bilateral commerce with Beijing).
Jackson-Vanik requires congress to review and approve trading annually with nations who have policies that prevent their nationals from traveling abroad. The process was established during the cold war. Abanadoning this annual vote and “normalizing” trade relations, however, does not establish any agreement on duties, cutsoms fees, tariffs, pharmecudicals, subsidies, or anything else for that matter. it just says that annual economic activity isnt going to be subject to an annual vote in Congress.
It should be made clear, however, that there is no “trade agreement” between Vietnam and the U.S.. The vote this week in Congress was significant, but it falls far short of a trade agreement — and this is very significant, not just a matter of semantics. Congress may have abandoned the annual Jackson-Vanik vote (and the leverage it allows the U.S. to exert on Vietnam, and before them China), but existing barriers and tarrifs on both sides of the pacific will remain in place (as they have with China).
What the vote does do is remove a significant obstacle if the US and Vietnam are interested in negotiating a bilateral trade agreement (like those we recently approved with Australia, Singapore, Chile, Oman, and Bahrain), but with the Democratic takeover of both houses of Congress, and the fact that the new majority will likely reject any effort to renew President Bush’s Trade Promotion Authority (which expires early next year), it is highly unlikely that any more bilateral or mutlilateral trade agreements will be negotiated or approved until either the Republicans re-take Congress, or the Democrats re-take the White House.
Comment by adam — December 9, 2006 @ 8:51 amNo! I’m an advocate of free trade. Why do jump right to making me a boogeyman? You’re calling me a racist? and saying I’m Big Brother? Geeze.
CAFTA and NAFTA and WTO remove trade authority from the Congress. Under the Constitution, the Congress has sole authority to oversee foreign trade. It bothers me that Congress would legislate away its authority. To whom? Who sits on these international trade boards, and who appoints them?
The agreements appear to undermine local farmers in that larger companies can flood the local markets and undersell them, even at a loss, with support of rules that strip locals of just protections. I’m not against multinationals, but legal rules that give large businesses unfair advantage. If the little guy has a lesser legal standing, that’s anti free market. (So your Big Brother! ptooey!)
Fiat money gives the power to debase the currency to whoever controls the printing press. Few people understand this viscerally, because most of us have only experienced a fiat economy. When the private, nobody-knows-who-owns-it Federal Reserve Bank prints money, the value of MY savings account goes down. If dollars were gold backed, like they used to be, no one would have the power to debase my earnings.
Comment by Stephen Blackwell — December 9, 2006 @ 9:04 amMedia Hypocrisy Gone Wild
—————————
Here is my open letter to Lou. Let me see how long it takes him to reply back.
Mr. Lou Dobbs:
I agree with you the corporations has, as you said and I quote “Declare a war against the middle class” but I never seem to hear any discussion about the corporate dominance of American media on your show.
“The idea”, that we the middle class can trust your reporting which you claims are “just facts” when you yourself work for one of the biggest media corporations — Time Warner Cable, is an obvious conflict of interest.
Also, in the interest of full disclosure to support your assertion that you are a “true friend” of middle class would you like to disclose on your show or on your website the details of your contract with CNN? The middle class would like to know what share their “best friend” makes from the big pie, the big corporations makes at the expense of middle class.
If you do fulfill these basic requests, I once and for all, believe that you are our true friend.
Comment by Alexa Jones — December 12, 2006 @ 9:19 amAmerica was built on protectionism. Our founding fathers believed that “protectionism” was vital to our economy, they called it “The American System”. Libertarians are the biggest phonies on the internet.
Comment by Brent — December 14, 2006 @ 5:11 pmActually, the American System was a creation of one Henry Clay.
Comment by Ryan — December 14, 2006 @ 7:00 pmLou Dobbs is the only media person I see expressing concern for the
Comment by Robert — December 26, 2006 @ 12:13 pmsurvival of the middle class.
Robert,
There is no war on the middle class.
Comment by Kevin — December 26, 2006 @ 6:57 pm