WP: Defining Dean (On NAFTA, WTO and other issues)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40299-2003Aug24.html

Howard Dean seemed to be having a grand time, and who could blame him? As he jogged to the podium Saturday evening, a roar rose out of the large (the campaign claimed 4,000) and spirited crowd. Music thumped, navy-blue Dean placards pumped skyward, partisan spirits and late-summer sunshine suffused the Falls Church park. As the former Vermont governor brought his presidential campaign to the Washington suburbs, any rivals for the Democratic nomination hoping that he would soon implode -- through inexperience, or overconfidence or the weight of his supposed liberalism -- wouldn't have found much encouragement.

That last charge -- that he can't win because he's too liberal or dovish -- is obviously one he's giving thought to. "I don't even consider myself a dove," he told me and my colleague Ruth Marcus during a conversation before the rally. It's "not possible" to fix him on the liberal-conservative scale, he said. "Where I am on the political spectrum is a convenient way to avoid talking about issues."

--snip--

One multilateral institution that might not fare so well in a Dean administration, though, is the World Trade Organization. In what would be a radical departure, China and other countries could get trade deals with the United States only if they adopted "the same labor laws and labor standards and environmental standards" as the United States. Whether or not that demand was consistent with WTO rules? "That's right." With no concession to their relative level of development? "Why should there be? They have the right to have a middle class same as everyone else."

Dean says, "We've tried it" -- NAFTA, WTO -- "for 10 years, and has it succeeded? No. . . . What's the purpose of trade? If it's to create jobs, we haven't done that in America."

Or is he saying that he would not comply with WTO rules and institute tariffs?

…
HOWARD DEAN: No. What I said-- Well, I'll tell you what I said in a minute. But I'll follow my train of thought here, most briefly. Free trade has benefited Vermont a great deal. Here's the problem with free trade, and here's why I support fair trade, and why I want to change all our trade agreements to include human rights with trade, as Jimmy Carter included human rights with foreign policy. I still think NAFTA was a good thing. I think the president did the right thing. But the problem now is that, 10 years into NAFTA, here's what we've done. We have shipped a lot of our industrial capacity to other countries. And the ownership pattern, and the ratio of reward between capital and labor in those other countries is what it was 100 years ago in this country.

So the reason for NAFTA is not just trade. It's defense and foreign policy. That is, a middle class country where women fully participate in the economic and political decision making of that country is a country that doesn't harbor groups like Al-Qaeda, and it's a country that does not go to war. So that's in our intersect. That's why trade is really in our long term interest. What we've done so far in NAFTA is we've transferred industrial capacity, but we haven't transferred any of the elements that are needed to make a middle class. The truth is, the trade union movement in this country built America, not literally-- Well, they did do it literally with the Brooklyn Bridge and the Empire State Building, and things like that. But they built America because they allowed people who worked in factories and mines to become middle class people. And America was the strongest country on earth, and still is, because we have the largest middle class on earth, with democratic ideals. That is, working people in this country, by and large, feel that this is their country, and they have a piece of the pie, and it matters what they think.

Now, if you want trade to succeed, ultimately, we're going to have to create a climate in other countries that are beneficiaries of NAFTA where they can create a middle class with democratic ideals. That means we should not have any free trade agreements, and we should go back and tell the WTO that "you need also to include environmental standards and labor standards." Here's why. Today, if you run a factory in Iowa-- Let's suppose you spend a million dollars a year disposing of all the waste products that come out that are toxic. You can go to another country and dump all that stuff in the river and on the ground. So America, because we have environmental standards, and we're willing to trade, straight out, free trade, with countries that it's cheaper by a million dollars, before you even get to wages, to do business there, I think that's a big problem. We're essentially saying, "Our environmental laws are strict. It's cheaper for you to go into business someplace lese. Go ahead." That's the wrong thing to do.

The same with labor standards. I don't know why we should be shipping our jobs offshore when kids can work 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for a small amount of wages. And isn't that what America fought against 100 years go? Wasn't that the victory of the trade union movement? So it seems to me that my position makes sense. We've gone through 10 years of free trade. We've gotten to a position where we now need to change our trade agreements.
…
HOWARD DEAN: What I would say is, we've gone the first mile. The first decade has worked, for exactly the reasons you say. I don't disagree with the premise of the free traders. I had this discussion with Bob Rubin, and I said, "Here's the problem. We need an emerging middle class in these countries, and we're not getting one. So now is the time to have labor and environmental standards attached to trade agreements." He said, "You're totally wrong. I can't disagree with you more." I said, "How would you address the problem?" I haven't heard back. You have to deal with this problem. It's a serious problem.

JOE KLEIN: What if they say no?

HOWARD DEAN: Then I'd say, "Fine, that's the end of free trade."

JOE KLEIN: What do you mean, that's the end of free trade? Then we slap tariffs on these countries?

HOWARD DEAN: Yes.

JOE KLEIN: So you'd be in favor of tariffs at that point.

HOWARD DEAN: If necessary. Look, Jimmy Carter did this in foreign policy. If you can't get people to observe human rights, and say that we're going to accept products from countries that have kids working no overtime, no time and a half, no reasonable safety precautions-- I don't think we ought to be buying those kinds of products in this country. We're enabling that to happen. I'm serious.
…
http://www.jfklibrary.org/forum_dean.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=46131&mesg_id=46131&page=

This is exactly what DLC-type Dems have been promising since before NAFTA, they will add labor and envionmental protections. Dean says he'll end free trade with countries that don't comply, but this is just another version of "most favored nation" status - even though China isn't a free country, I'll bet $20 that Dean would certify them anyway.

Unfortunately, this sounds like more of the same shell-game they have played forever. Dean doesn't show any interest in lessening the power of corporations, just asking them to play nice. Notice he strictly talks of *government* guarentees, nothing about stopping corporations from collaborating with these sorts of regimes.

Plus, I'd love to head Dean give ANOTHER interview about this, instead of this repeat they've been posting for almost a year now.

"I'll bet $20 that Dean would certify them anyway."


they bash what they are sure he MIGHT do at some point in the future.


"Dean doesn't show any interest in lessening the power of corporations, just asking them to play nice. Notice he strictly talks of *government* guarentees, nothing about stopping corporations from collaborating with these sorts of regimes."

“Free trade must equal fair trade. We are subsidizing the sometimes awful environmental practices of our trading partners, and we are subsidizing the profits of multinational corporations by not having international labor standards. If free trade allows General Motors to set up a plant in Mexico, free trade should allow the UAW to organize that plant under conditions similar to those in the US. This isn't wage parity; I am asking for shared ground rules” (DeanforAmerica.com).

So he wants to keep NAFTA and the WTO? I didn't quite get his stance from this article.

"fair trade" but don't scuttle anything, even NAFTA, which CANNOT BE MODIFIED; then fair wages, some environmental protection, but never any mention of the right to organize independent unions; now this!! Tells me he either doesn't have a policy or he blows in the wind...

Tell me when he figures it out.

You mean when YOU figure it out?

This is disappointing coming from you, tho I have to say that I increasingly see very disappointing comments from Kucinich supporters whom I would have thought would be the last to resort to such tactics as distortions about other candidates.

His position has neither waivered, nor is it difficult to follow or understand. Trade agreements must include environmental protections, labor protections and human rights protections. That's it.

See?

Eloriel

It seems someone gets very "disappointed" whenever another poster disagrees with her. What Carol sees as an unclear position is, to Eloriel, "distortions".

Gully posted a website with a series of articles challenging Kucinich on a number of issues. Throughout the thread, Gully mantained civility but continually asked for clarification. The site was attacked repeatedly but without any specific defense offered for Kucinich's positions past and present. Yet these same posters continually zero in on Dean, and even when clarification - or direct quotes are used to state positions on the record, the issue is hashed-out again as if it was the first time.

like the weblog about Kucinich, and an article in the Washinton Post that while not Dean-worshipping, is hardly that critical. When Kucinich posters start posting unsourced hit pieces on Dean, then you can complain.

Besides, everyone knows it's the Dean supporters who are thin-skinned :)

they are just as pumped by Dean's fiestyness and are unwilling to back down.

if its worth fighting for, fight.

This is the nexus of the restoration of the party, it is not limited to the limitations of the candidate--it has moved beyond the candidate.

The same WP that was so gung-ho behind the push for war, they felt obliged to publish an explanation for all their readers complaining of the bias...The same WP which just savaged Gore's fine move-on speech recently?

When was the last time Dean said something inconsistent or unclear on this issue?

I'm curious because I haven't heard anything.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/government.shtml

"In July of 1997, Vermont governor Howard Dean announced that he wanted to appoint to the Vermont Supreme Court a justice who would consider "common sense more important than legal technicalities" and "quickly convict guilty criminals." "

What are these "legal technicalities" Dean is talking about? He was unclear on that point.

ANd how about this?:

http://www.liberaloasis.com/dean.htm

"LiberalOasis: What do you think were the motivations for the Bush Administration to go to war with Iraq?

Howard Dean: I can't speak to his motives, because I can't read his mind.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, though, and presume that he believes Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to our security."

Why does Dean give Bush*, a known liar, the "benefit of the doubt"?

I asked for an example on the issue in question:

FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS.

Someone else who cares enough can respond to your generic bashing.

"In July of 1997, Vermont governor Howard Dean announced that he wanted to appoint to the Vermont Supreme Court a justice who would consider "common sense more important than legal technicalities" and "quickly convict guilty criminals." "

Cite the entire quote... when you have to cut quote into a few words and fill in the rest, you show your attack is not strong enough to stand on its own.



"Why does Dean give Bush*, a known liar, the "benefit of the doubt"?"

Perhaps for the same reason Kerry did?

What's wrong with you guys? You only back a loser?!

Get real!

you have to scrap NAFTA. It CANNOT BE MODIFIED.The countries involved have to come up with an entirely NEW treaty in order to get anything new into it. This fact seems to have escaped Dean.

Remember when there was all that fuss in California about that stuff added to gasoline that was polluting the water supply of California and California voted to ban it? Then a Canadian firm sued because they WOULD LOSE MONEY from this state-wide regulation?(Chapter 11 of NAFTA)Then the truth came out: how even for the safety of our citizens, we were NOT allowed to disobey NAFTA. Ya gotta have free trade even if people suffer....

But, Dean will not say, "Scrap NAFTA. Let's start over and put some real meat on those bones." Naw, he wants his cake and eat it too.

I am not here just to knock Dean. This is a major issue and WE NEED TO KNOW WHERE THE CANDIDATES STAND.ALL THE CANDIDATES, NOT JUST DEAN. Saying we want to add something to a treaty that cannot be modified is disingenuous, at the least.

Will check back and go into WTO later. Have to take new voter registrations to the County Clerk today, or they cannot vote in our special election.

He doesn't want to scrap NAFTA, but to modify it.

If he said "scrap NAFTA", then he would be confusing his position.

I have a feeling he knows he'll need a new treaty. If you doubt this, why don't you try asking him?

You can't just modify NAFTA. We have made commitments. We can either continue to meet those commitments, or withdraw from NAFTA, which will have the effect of scrapping it.

And scrapping it will require new negotiations, and new negotiations will require that Congress give POTUS fast-track authority. Now what's the chance of Dean getting fast-track authority? Even more important, what are the chances we'll get to hear Dean describe all the messy details involved in implementing his promises?

what are the chances we'll get to hear Dean describe all the messy details involved in implementing his promises?

A pass like that is only given to the likes of the Simian. None of our contenders would be able to get out of such a thing. Whoever gets the nom will have their feet held to the fire by the reich-wing press 24/7.

Even before the nom is decided, with such a competitive field I think all will eventually have to reveal much of their plans to make things better.

Julie-who wants details to be forthcoming from all candidates

"but never any mention of the right to organize independent unions;"

Are you shitting me? Have you been living under a rock, or are you simply BSing.

“Free trade must equal fair trade. We are subsidizing the sometimes awful environmental practices of our trading partners, and we are subsidizing the profits of multinational corporations by not having international labor standards. If free trade allows General Motors to set up a plant in Mexico, free trade should allow the UAW to organize that plant under conditions similar to those in the US. This isn't wage parity; I am asking for shared ground rules” (DeanforAmerica.com).