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
Patrick – With all due respect (I know, that’s a red flag intro if there ever was one) your fear of “characterization” is more than a little naive. Even to the most casual observer, it is obvious that the Progressives will take whatever we do and paint us in the worst light possible. There is no upside to siding with them at any time. First rule of political warfare: Pleasing your enemies do not turn them into your friends.
They will not reciprocate. And when you attempt to remind them of your support in the future they will laugh in your face and STILL do everything in their power to defeat you.
If your argument boils down to “They will call us racists for opposing the President” I have a little news for you: they are going to call us that no matter what.
YOU: I voted with the President on Asian trade!
THEM: You’re racist, homophobic, misogynistic and you sold the American worker down the river.
YOU: But I voted with the President on immigration reform!
THEM: You’re racist, homophobic, misogynistic and you sold the American worker down the river.
Defend what about Mr. Obama, exactly: his overweening arrogance? Or, perhaps, his seemingly-invincible ignorance? Not I, thank you very much…
I would argue that the defining characteristic of the poor reception is a lack of Ethos and Pathos. The Logos part had about the same chance as a snowball in hell.
I’m sorry, Patrick. It’s not a fair reception of the idea(free trade is good). But, any well that carries his name is thoroughly, legitimately poisoned by his fruits. He keeps crying wolf, and now none of us are eager to get up and help.
I respectfully submit that, our general agreement on free trade notwithstanding, we are in the unusual position of having to evaluate TPP on the basis of the players involved. For his part, President Obama has done precisely nothing to indicate that he either appreciates or supports free market economics. In fact, he takes every conceivable opportunity on the stump to vilify the free market, divide the American people into groups, pitting one group against another, ad infinitum. Given his record of antagonism against the American economic model, and his organic incapacity to tell the truth on any subject, what makes you think he’s really on your side with respect to an endeavor the specifics of which you concede that you don’t know?
Second, with respect to Congress’ power to pull the plug on a bad agreement, I urge you again to look carefully at the players involved. Do you expect Mitch McConnell or John Boehner to rebel against a bad deal? They’ve lied to us about their opposition to President Obama’s executive over reach, they’ve funded Obamacare with their votes, and they’ve ceded the power of the purse. Senate Republicans paved the way for the appointment of an Attorney General whose stated views directly contravene the Constitution. They can’t even be trusted to protect their treaty power under the Constitution, and will not stand in the way of Iran going nuclear. Upon what exactly do you pin your hopes that they will suddenly sprout a spine?
With a President who cannot be trusted, and an ostensible opposition that refuses to oppose him in any meaningful way, it seems to me that any effort to invest still more power or trust in this administration or these congressional leaders should be opposed at every turn. Especially on a deal the specifics of which are unknown. That’s not opposition due to some philistine animosity, as you seem to indicate, but rather a clear-eyed assessment of the damage already done and the determination to avoid still more of the same.
I don’t see how this response could have been surprising. I think a number of conservatives support free trade. I understand why the details of the TPP are secret (not giving the other countries a look at our plan.)
That said when you have “secret” negotiations on any matter, even one like free trade that are a good thing, you have to trust the people making the deal to do the right thing. Most on this site do not trust Pres. Obama and many do not trust Congressional leaders.
How did you expect a positive reaction to a secret deal, negotiated by people we don’t trust?
This is why we can’t have nice things.
I don’t think Patrick is advocating approval of TPP before we get a look at what’s in it. Apparently lots of people think that if you pass TPA, then you are agreeing in advance to whatever TPP deal he ends up negotiating. TPA simply says that a President should have the authority to negotiate multilateral deals that congress (or the Senate), will either vote up or down without amendments. This is done because it’s simply not feasible to allow amendments after a deal has already been negotiated.
I’m somewhat skeptical that any deal he produces will be better than the status quo. But as long as congress (legislation) or the Senate (treaty) gets an up or down vote on the final product, then I can’t see the harm.
What’s in it? Now when presumably it is a set of objectives, priorities, authorities, opening positions, it may be understandable. With time it will become incomprehensible and few in Congress will read it and even fewer will understand it. They will vote up or down based on what the interests in their districts make the most noise about. We aren’t good at the process. The Special Trade Negotiator was created to give us some continuity and experience, like MITI in Japan, but the political leadership must always move on so settle for a photo op and press statement, confident that that is all anyone will pay attention to. Add to this weakness that we can’t trust this Administration, don’t really have a coherent Asia policy, and that the economy is less competitive in every sector except the ones growing faster than the regulators can suffocate. Let’s just toss and replace the regulatory regime and tax code; get competitive. Then we can pursue global negotiations. They take long enough so that we can get our political bureaucratic arms around the substance and can’t settle for a photo op and a press statement. Subsidiary trade agreements are leverage for the bigger deal. Indeed ( little known history) USTR threw out the idea of a wider NAFTA as pressure on the EC, but liberalizing reformist de la Madrid seized it and it took on it’s own momentum. The bilateral and regional approach is backwards.