History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
You're right about Edwards' rhetoric, and I've noted before that 'manufacturing' is a sector in decline (http://hnn.us/articles/235.html). Clinton's education mantra was much more effective for me, as it recognized the importance of rising economic sectors.
And I agree that farms subsidies are a massive and important issue, though I'm not entirely sure that the absolutist free trade position makes sense, either when you factor in the role of agrocorporations and food safety issues. But I don't give Bush extra credit for this agreement as I believe that Gore would probably have been pushed into the same agreement (possibly faster, as Gore professed respect for international agreements and systems).
One of the other posters here noted the lack of firm deadlines and enforcement provisions, which explains a lot of Bush's willingness to go along, in my view. Unless ADM, et al. feel that their business will be aided by a real drop in subsidies (and why would they give up price-raising, income-generating subsidies?) Bush will play along with the WTO but drag his feet, as he has been doing.
Gil Milbauer -
8/10/2004
Pat,
The prospects for good Bush administration policy is one thing, and which candidate you vote for (if any) is another thing.
I suggest sending an email to Bush supporting the recent trade-liberalizing negotiations to try to influence policy (I suspect each such message is counted, and interpreted to represent many potential voters).
As for your vote, since it won't swing the election, I think you should decide if expressing a preference is worth your time and trouble. If it is, it should probably the clearest expression of which way you'd like the country to move, and that would probably be best transmitted by a vote for the LP. A vote for Bush could just as easily be seen an anti-gay vote as a free-trade one.
Pat Lynch -
8/10/2004
I hope you're right, but I have my concerns. Edwards policy discussion of moving corporate taxes around is one thing, but his complaining about lost jobs that simply are economically untenable bothers me much more. Records matter, and Kerry has signed just about every major trade bill that the Senate has voted on - that works in his favor for me. But the discussions about farm subsidies are, I think you'd agree, historic and important. And I do wonder what political gain Bush has from this. I mean they are passing out tariff protection so quickly it makes my head spin. This may be something Bush simply doesn't care enough about to pay attention to.....
Pat Lynch -
8/10/2004
If he didn't have the farm bill behind him I might be inclined to disagree. But I think you're right. However I am afraid, deeply afraid, of what Kerry and Edwards would do in office on this issue.
Pat Lynch -
8/10/2004
Agreed - lol. Of course what is a free trader supposed to do if choosing between a very tenuous maybe (Bush) and a probable no (Kerry)? I'm probably going to vote LP, but I'd say Bush is a 5% chance right now with the trade stuff.....
Pat Lynch -
8/10/2004
Agreed - although some, and I'm not one of them, have argued that 9/11 changed the landscape so dramatically as to make it impossible for him to follow through on much. The tax cuts would be the one thing I think we could say he followed through on.
Jonathan Dresner -
8/9/2004
Bush's trade stance is pretty much identical to Clinton's, perhaps a bit more protectionist, and probably Kerry will be more or less the same. Fact of the matter is that our ties to the WTO, and international trade systems, require moving in the direction of free trade. All the protectionist talk of Edwards boils down to shifting corporate tax breaks, and adding some protocols to the trade treaties, not real protectionism. The world system, the US markets, won't let Kerry/Edwards be anything more radical than that.
So I would call this one a draw.
Grant Gould -
8/9/2004
The agreement has no dates in it for implementation. It's as if it were drafted to answer the question, "how low do you have to go before dishonesty doesn't even rise to the level of lying any more?"
I think that we can trust Mr. Bush to respect the letter and spirit of the agreement: To do nothing, and reap political benefit none the less.
John Arthur Shaffer -
8/9/2004
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me...
Or as GW put it: "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. It fool me. We can't get fooled again."
Shirley Knott -
8/9/2004
"Can Dubya be trusted to follow through..." you ask.
Let me bring a rejoinder --
what promises did he make in his prior run that have been kept? Any? Any at all?
That might just be a useful criterion to use in helping to determine whether he can be trusted with any of his promises this time...
