Pocketbook Politics
Mr. Meyerson,
Your article ("Can Free Trade Be a Fair Deal?", 02/23/07) was excellent and laid out the political fault lines very well. That is the debate we should have. I'm not sure the left wants to have one on that particular subject though, they seemingly are more energized by personal freedom issues and resistance to the use of American military power.
As for the feasibility of putting the New Deal back in place. The linchpin is the unbalanced configuration of globalization. We don't really have free trade now. That is the fallacy that Rubin is working with. It is less fettered and therefore greatly expanded trade, but it isn't conducted without restrictions by a long shot. That is why calling labor leaders "protectionist" is just a political slander not meant to enlighten.
I'm not against trade. It creates wealth, and God love American business people for being so good at that. But these deals have to be better negotiated. We have to demand that the governments of our trading partners pursue development policies that will build their own middle classes. That means Keynesian spending and allowing labor to bargain collectively and to strike to enforce contracts.
Up to the last year or so, economic issues haven't come up because most of the Democratic Party has been preoccupied with personal freedom issues and battling it out with right-wing Republicans. That atmosphere hasn't lent much luster to discussion about economics. We have ignored it, as a matter of fact, while Republicans have offered up tax cuts as their policy. I think the country would buy our version of things if we don't appear to be radicals. We have to respect business, in other words. Then we have to bargain wisely, both politically at home and economically abroad, to get something for what we give. And we have to engineer a Democratic majority that will pursue this kind of agenda. That will require some restraint on our part and some real strategizing. We have to compromise with each other in the party to hammer out this objective and stick together to win elections in sufficient number to govern. That will be tough. And it might take time. I hope not fifty years.
Robert Abbott
Gilbert, AZ
The Straw "Grenade"
""The Gay Grenade" (02/27/07) leads with "Are ERA proponents agitating for women's rights at the expense of gays and lesbians?" and supports the implication that the answer is "yes" by referencing a single article posted on Womensenews.org by Idella Moore of 4ERA. Naturally, you failed to publish a link to the counter opinion article published by Womensenews barely a week later.
The article goes on to discuss previous errors and discrimination committed by "feminists" (read "all feminists"), the implication being that "feminists" are selling out LGBTQ folks (and racial minorities and just about everyone else), which wildly misrepresents the views of the large majority of feminists today. Today, the large majority of feminists fully support same-sex marriage and fully understand that equality for women is inextricably entwined with equality for LGBTQ folks.
Feminists are also involved in advocating for a vast array of oppressed people worldwide. A quick perusal of feminist blogs, feminist organization literature, and feminist publications would make that clear. Unfortunately, such research would undermine the apparent intent of the article, which is the demonization of feminists.
Sherry E. Mead
San Francisco, CA
Call It Progress
"Buyer Beware" (03/05/07) made important points, thanks for speaking up. We in the social investment industry are constantly monitoring corporate ethical stances, largely because we've been advocating for changes in their policies for decades. These shifts are also happening because customers are also asking for them -- they vote with their dollars every day, and are changing their habits these days to reward more ethical companies. And while sometimes companies do it for the wrong reasons -- image, self-interest -- I do hope that ultimately the consciousness-raising that accompanies it will mean something. Wal-Mart announcing that it will soon sell 400 organic food products in its markets, for example, will have a significant impact on society, as will its indication that it intends to hold its 1,000 Chinese manufacturers to the same labor standards as their American counterparts. Wal-Mart still has a long way to go in order for most socially responsible investors to include the company in their portfolios, but at least it's movement in the right direction. Corporate social responsibility has caught on, finally, and the momentum will hopefully translate to all industries, including pharmaceuticals (it hasn't yet).
Michael Kramer, M.Ed., Accredited Investment Fiduciary
Natural Investment Services, Inc.
Don't Forget Whole Foods
I write as I listen to a guest on Wisconsin Public Radio glow about the virtues of faux do-gooder Whole Foods (WF). Kuttner's "Buyer Beware" article was right on the money and a nice contrast to the radio program. And Whole Foods should have also been on the Kuttner list of corporations that deserve scorn. I'll never forget how WF crushed unionizing workers in Madison, Wisconsin after workers successfully achieved “union recognition” only to be defeated by WF corporate headquarters. WF used all the antiunion tactics -- slow bargain, firing organizers, terrifying workers with mandatory meetings. Never forget that WF's CEO described workers with a union contract as akin to a corporate case of herpes.
Scott Hanson
Madison, WI
"Family" Valued
I'd never heard of Harold Meyerson in my life, but "The Family Values Sham" (03/07/07) appeared in my local Atlanta Journal-Constitution today, and I have a new hero.
Thank you, Mr. Meyerson, for an insightful, fresh take on the demise of this once-wonderful country.
Susan McWethy
Decatur, GA
The American Prospect welcomes and publishes letters to the editor for both its print and online versions. To respond to an article, email:
letters@prospect.org
.
