The Economist on ‘America’s Division on Foreign Trade’ and other fictions: a comment by Political Observer

A ‘Trade Deal’ that is a complete secret, it is a classified document and the only things we know about it are from leaks. But we do know that it’s known provisions surrender our ability to call ourselves a democracy,a nation of laws, that we make to govern ourselves. That we should sacrifice our sovereignty for an unknown, that is supposed to give us some trade advantage, in theory, is too much. If the president is interested in a true debate then let him publish the agreement, so we as citizens may review all of it’s provisions and have a debate about the consequences of a yes or a no vote. It’s really very simple, does the president have a demonstrable faith in our democracy or not?
The Economist gives the game away with the headline ‘Toying with a poorer world’ and it’s sub headline, ‘A Democratic revolt exposes a party deeply divided by foreign trade’, not speak of the opening paragraph:

A SEEMINGLY arcane dispute about how to strengthen America’s hand in foreign trade talks—which for 24 hours this week saw Senate Democrats block debate on a negotiating tool sought by Barack Obama—has exposed just how deeply the Democratic Party is divided by global commerce, and whether it is a threat or an opportunity for American workers.

The Congress is not divided about ‘global commerce’ but about secrecy, where transparency and plain speaking is demanded,nothing that could be called ‘seemingly arcane’, but can rightly be called un-reflective political conformity in the name of ‘Trade’! The rest of the essay is larded with the usual Economist ‘Left Wing’ obsession: Senator Warren is a New Deal Democrat! The opposition to this ‘trade deal’ crosses Party lines because Americans have a deep animus toward what looks like, what is, a complete surrender of our deeply held belief and practice of free and open debate to Presidential claims.
Political Observer

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.