Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
It’s Time for Conservatives to Defend… President Obama
For six years, conservatives have been hammering the Obama administration. While the lay observer may decry this seemingly out-of-the-ordinary level of partisanship of late, it must be acknowledged that President Obama himself is arguably the most left-of-center person to hold the office since FDR. This president has pushed, with varying levels of success, some of the most liberal/progressive policies ever to be championed by someone people take seriously. This leaves conservatives with little to actually chew on and weigh supporting for any significant period of time. That all being said… well… we all know the saying about a broken clock.
And that clock currently says it is time for conservatives to come to the defense of President Obama.
This past month, President Obama has been focusing on the issue of international trade. In a shocking departure from his fellow uber-liberals, the president is actually supportive of increasingly liberalized (in the classical sense) trade structures. This comes as the president is seeking to gain Congressional approval of increased trade promotion powers and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement with Pacific Rim nations.
There are probably things in the TPP that would give conservatives heartburn. However, we don’t know really know what is in the TPP agreement because it has been kept secret. Indeed this is a point of concern in and of itself. Yet, for now, let’s not debate the details we can’t be certain actually exist. Instead, until the full terms of the deal are released, we conservatives should stand firmly behind President Obama and defend him on the issue of trade liberalization as a whole.
We can do this because the majority of this trade debate has still been centered on the same old economic nonsense of previous episodes. Trade is fundamentally a good thing. It is at the very heart of the free market economic philosophy we conservatives claim to champion. The principles behind trade are sound and in the economics community there is little debate about the positive impacts of free trade. Some people are better suited concentrating on a particular task or set of tasks and can thus improve economic efficiency and the welfare of society by doing so.
The costs of goods and services fall while real incomes rise for all. These are the facts of trade, be it between nations or neighbors. This is perhaps why Democrats opposed to President Obama on trade have taken the tact they have in their dissent. Democrats have personally attacked President Obama for his policy position. Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown called President Obama a “sexist” for referring to Senator Elizabeth Warren as “Elizabeth” when responding to her comments about trade.
The urge for conservatives is to sit back and enjoy the Democratic infighting. However, conservatives should seize this opportunity. We always claim to be above pettiness and instead focused on policy. Here’s the chance to prove it.
Democratic economic policy is startling in its lack of substance. It is painfully undeniable that every economic stance of the left involves taking from Peter to pay Paul:
“Raise the minimum wage!” “Tax the rich!” “Build more infrastructure!” “Free college tuition!” “Free healthcare!” “Protect ________ jobs!”
How profound.
These policies represent the easy road on the issues upon which they take aim. But, as a line of wisdom from the classic children’s novel The Phantom Tollbooth reminds us, “The only thing you can do easily is be wrong, and that’s hardly worth the effort.”
To be clear, this doesn’t say anything about the character of Democrats. I remember asking my father as a child why everything couldn’t be free. I am sure many other children have done the same. That doesn’t make children bad people. But in 2015, we can do better than solutions that humans at their earliest stages of intellectual development are capable of postulating.
Yet when Republicans challenge people to look beyond the surface, Democrats tend to lash out with character attacks instead of substantive arguments. Republicans are always just “racist” or “sexist” or pushing someone off a cliff. So when Democrats hurl such a stone at arguably the most progressive president in US history because of his stance on trade, the question is thus begged: What does this say about the totality of the Democratic agenda if its first line of defense involves calling the most progressive president in history a sexist?
Conservatives are tired of the adolescent attacks from the left that come as a result of highlighting the equal naiveté of their economic philosophy. While President Obama is also guilty of such unfounded character attacks over policy disagreements, it is our duty as the primary victims of such political immaturity to defend all those subjected to it. We do this in order to ensure that we may one day rise above politics driven by such paltriness and finally be free to propose that perhaps the solutions to our problems aren’t as simple as our colleagues may suggest; and be able to do so without fear of being labeled a bigot of some sort.
So here it goes: President Obama is not a sexist. His views on international trade suggest no character flaws, only either a deeper or more pragmatic understanding of a complex issue. He should be applauded for his effort to promote increased economic engagement with our fellow men across the world even if we may disagree with aspects of the final TPP agreement.
Published in General
Did I miss the published details of the TPP? Apparently not.
Don’t tell me – we have to support and approve it before we know what’s in it.
No, the terms are still secret. My main point is that we can have an honest discussion of the specifics of the TPP once they are released; for now however, so long as the debate is about trade economics in general, the president has been on our side.
I agree. President Obama isn’t a sexist.
However, I don’t agree that he is correct on TPP. The fact that it is being rammed through in complete and total secrecy – Congressmen who have been allowed to access the agreement have not been allowed to quote segments of the text or even take notes while reviewing it – is a very worrying sign. Look, free trade is a good thing, and if tariffs were at 20% across the board and the latest Samsung/Apple spat had us on the brink of a trade war with South Korea I might be inclined to excuse this sort of thing. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. If I remember correctly, trade barriers are at or near historic lows, and the U.S. already does a huge amount of business with the other TPP nations (which notably include Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, and New Zealand). Under those circumstances there’s no excuse for the kind of crony-capitalism-enabling secrecy that have characterized the TPP negotiations thus far. It’s a rare thing that I agree with Sen. Warren and even rarer that I quote Woodrow Wilson to do it, but it’s time for “open covenants, openly arrived at.” The TPP should be opened to public scrutiny and congressional oversight.
I would agree with this mostly. I do wonder why the secrecy and formalities when free trade should be just that. Again, however, the president has gone to bat against the likes of Warren and Sanders in defending against their ridiculous protectionism. The debate, in my view, remains mostly economic (does trade destroy jobs and lock people in sweatshops, etc.). I would be against cronyist provisions in the TPP, but we don’t know if they are in there or not. Until then, let’s back him up on the economics of trade and rise above partisanship where we can.
Hence my concern. Obama has never acted in the best interests of this country, so any secret negotiations with anyone by this man or his administration are looked at (by me) with fear, not trust . . .
Perhaps this makes me a lesser man, but I’m not inclined to declare something “good” just because it has the right enemies. There is such a thing as a bad trade deal, and frankly I’m not inclined to take the word of this administration – of all people! – that TPP isn’t just such a bad deal. The status quo is not so intolerable that we can’t stay where we are for a while longer, hashing out whether or not the particular provisions of the TPP are worth passing. If it’s really all they say it is, what do they have to fear by letting it out into the public domain?
I’m sorry… I hate to be caught in the fallacy ad hominem; but it’s not a fallacy if it’s true that everything this man touches turns to crap.
“Secret terms” only allows us to argue from ignorance. Until we have information we’ll just be reliving the run up to Obamacare, Net Neutrality, etc. : and we’ll end up in another state of bamboozlement.
Advocates are making a case that cannot be confirmed, nor denied. And, to engage in conjecture and fantasy is pure childish silliness.
Sorry, Patrick. No sale. Lets see the deal. Then we’ll have something to talk about.
Patrick, I share your view. This bill has to do with giving the President the authority to negotiate an agreement that the Senate can thereafter vote up or down (without being able to amend it).
This is not a bilateral agreement. If amendments are an option, negotiations become impossible. For our negotiators will not be in a position to make deals if those deals can easily be undone by a Senator intent on protecting a special interest within his state.
This bill is important for another reason. China is attempting what Japan once attempted — to turn East Asia into a co-prosperity sphere under its domination. To counter this, we need to organize a free trade bloc incorporating the other states in Asia.
We are the off-shore balancer — and this bill is an instrument of foreign policy. For once, Barack Obama is being responsible while his party is being irresponsible. For once he needs encouragement . . . and there is no harm in our driving a wedge between factions in the Democratic Party.
Typical lefties and others who oppose free trade may honestly believe that doing so is in the best interests of the country.
That’s does not appear relevant to Obama. He has no apparent desire “to promote increased economic engagement with our fellow men across the world…” It seems that every day he wakes up thinking, “How can I punish my enemies and reward my friends?” Those enemies are often Americans and those friends are often those who hate America. I fear any trade deal will be based principally on this.
Appreciate your comment, Paul. Thanks!
Stop. This. Now.
He’s not advocating for free trade nor for any specific policy. He’s advocating for increased presidential power and yet another shredding of the Constitution and emasculation of the legislative branch.
No deal is so important that it’s worth going behind the public’s back and risking the implementation of anti-competitive sweetheart deals for politically connected firms.
There are other ways to counterbalance China than by doing the same things it’s trying to do, but draping them in red, white, and blue bunting. All the TPP nations are our friends already, and we already do a massive amount of business in the Pacific.
So we don’t know what’s in the TPP, but based on the trust Obama has built up in his other foreign and domestic policies we should give him the benefit of the doubt? Certainly his honesty in selling Obamacare and his ethics in his administration of the IRS and the DOJ must be taken into consideration. His respect for the constitution and the rule of law in immigration issues is a factor. His “frank and open” assessment of the events on 9/11/12 and his candor and humility in the killing of Bin Laden will weigh on my TPP trust.
The respectful way Obama has dealt with his political opponents must be considered. I will also take into account his judgement in the Hands up don’t shoot affair.
With an honest and moral man at the helm of state you can hand him the checkbook and send him off to cut the best deal available – Obama is not that man.
Something is missing in this discussion. At no point in the past, when Congress has given previous Presidents the authority to negotiate a trade agreement that it would later vote up or down without being able to amend, has it had a trade agreement in front of it. The TPP, as it stands, is a draft of an agreement. Congress is not voting on it; Congress is voting on negotiating authority. Without such authority, no agreement of this sort is possible. If such authority is accorded the President, Congress will have an opportunity to judge the result of his efforts. If Congress does not formally approve it, it does not go into effect.
So why is the TPP draft secret? Would you want to reveal your negotiating position ahead of time to those with whom you are negotiating? I think not. Why is there a draft at all? To reassure those in Congress allowed to peruse it.
Why are the Democrats opposed? They do not like free trade. Why is Obama for it? He is President, the buck stops on his desk, and those who occupy the oval office are usually more responsible than are Senators.
I say he can go to hell. Even if he’s right.
My reasoning? There is absolutely no chance this president will deliver any reciprocity at any time in the next two years. So why help? Do you think the voters will appreciate it?
HA!
The Warren faction will still say the GOP Senate sold the American worker down the river so Big Business can use cheap overseas labor. And the Senate flips back to the Dems, the White House flips back to the Clintons and what do we get?
Whatever check on the ChiComs it won’t be enough to offset the potential damage domestically.
I can’t take this to heart, Paul. I wish i could. If past performance is any predictor of future outcomes – then we are being hoodwinked. Much like the other “Trust-me’s ” I’ve heard from the oval office. Lower premiums, sea levels, and temperatures; among so many others.
I understand the earlier comments you provided with respect to the proper discretion, which is on display, to be reasonable and respectable.
… but …
What evidence do you have to support your claim? I submit – none.
How were trade agreements handled previously?
?????. Since FDR? FDR was a wingnut compared to this guy. He is arguably the most corrupt, though the Clintons offer some tough competition for that honor.
Free trade is generally good. Not nearly as important as cleaning up corporate welfare and crony government, but usually it’s a good thing. Whether free trade has anything to do with this bill is another question. Nobody has done more to earn our mistrust than President Obama and the current Republican leadership.
Warning—I’m going to get Claire mad at me. Not only no, but HELL no!
This is spot on.
Defend Obama? Are you out of your [expletive]ing mind?! I’d rather be shot at sunrise.
Give Obama the authority to proceed. If he produces something worthwhile, approve it. Note that given his record at negotiations, there isn’t much chance of that happening.
If authority is to be denied, let it be on Obama’s nitwit allies.
As Churchill said: If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons. The President is probably someone you want on the other team (as he seems to be proving), but bless him for being a free-trader–however that happened.
One thing you can take to the bank is that he is not a free trader, any more than the affordable health care act was about affordability.
Republicans should not exert any political effort or political capital to support anything Obama does. Every Breath Obama takes is an Evil Lie.
I support the principle of free trade. I don’t know the specifics of the TTP, so I won’t comment on that. But it will be a cold day in hell when I support Obama on anything.
Well said. That’s a good position to hold.
I give him credit for helping the gun industry and the NRA. As far as free trade, if he would eliminate the tariffs on steel, tires, and sugar, that would get my attention. I really don’t like paying 20-35% more for these things than the rest of the world.
It’s impossible to have a coherent conversation when it’s impossible to evaluate the claims of the opponents or the supporters.
It is for that reason I oppose fast tracking. TPP will be harder to stop after us plebs are allowed to see the meat of the agreement and start melting the congressional phone lines.
I can’t support making something easier to do if I don’t know what that thing is.
I do not trust the TPP, or any initiative which makes it easier to pass, and neither should anyone else.
Well this has been a fairly disheartening response. I share most concerns about the TPP, but we can’t argue against what we don’t know. TPA allows for Congress to set goals for trade negotiations for the president. The president then must bring the agreement back to the Congress for a vote. If TPP is bad, it can be killed.
But President Obama has been the subject of attacks for making the economic case for increased trade. Forget the specifics of the TPP, which none of us here know.
All I was trying to say is that it may behoove the conservative movement to be willing to embrace those with whom we usually disagree when we are able to find areas of even modest agreement. Obama is arguing against all the same silly economic boogeymen that free-marketers do when it comes to the issue of free trade. We ought to recognize that and give credit where it is due. Otherwise we risk characterizing ourselves in the exact way the liberal establishment wants.
Unfortunately it seems like many here have chosen the latter path.