Protecting Workers' Rights Does Not Amount to "Globophobia"

The early responses to John Edwards' announcement that he will run for the Democratic presidential nomination are coming in, and at least one leading Centrist Democrat does not like the themes being offered by the former North Carolina Senator.

Aides to presidential candidate Edwards say the former North Carolina senator can attract votes from the political center by conveying passion and commitment. But Clintonites like Progressive Policy Institute's Will Marshall fret about rise of populist "globaphobia" within the party. [emphasis added]

To provide some context, the first paragraph of Marshall's biography on Wikipedia reads as follows:

Will Marshall is one of the founders of the New Democrat movement, which aims to steer the US Democratic Party toward a more moderate orientation. Since its founding in 1989, he has been president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council. He recently served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a committee chaired by Joe Lieberman and John McCain designed to build bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion. Marshall signed a similar letter sent to President Bush put out by the Social Democrats USA on Feb. 25, 2003, just before the invasion. The SDUSA letter urged Bush to commit to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning." He writes frequently on political and public policy matters, especially the "Politics of Ideas" column in Blueprint, the DLC's magazine. Notably, he is one of the co-authors of Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy.

It should come as little surprise that Marshall, a DLCer who strongly advocated for America to wage war on Iraq, would voice concerns about the candidacy of someone who now opposes the war and would like to see an end to American involvement in the country. With his own views now thoroughly undermined by the reality on the ground in Iraq and rejected by the vast majority of Americans, Marshall, as well as others of his ilk, would have much to lose were the Democratic Party to choose as its standard bearer in 2008 someone with the fortitude to advocate the redeployment of American troops from Iraq. Facing the prospect of no longer having the ear of the powers within the party, Marshall has no choice but to dredge up a strawman argument: that any Democrat opposed to transforming the Middle East at the barrel of the American gun or in favor of protecting American workers' rights in trade agreements is a "globophobe."

But Marshall knows better, as do we. Implementing a trade policy that ensures America can compete on an even playing field by mandating some standards for workplace safety, protecting the enviroment and the like is not "globophobia." Using America's soft power through diplomacy instead of rushing to use America's military forces when not necessary is not "globophobia." Acknowledging that escalating the War in Iraq by increasing the number of American troops involved is not "globophobia." Strengthening America's ties to its allies throughout the world is not "globophobia." Nothing that John Edwards advocates -- or, for that matter, the vast majority of the populist Democrats who won key elections around the country on November 7, enabling Democratic control over the House and Senate -- amounts to "globophobia."

As Chris has written before, there is no place in the Democratic Party for those who make ad hominem attacks on other Democrats -- particularly when those attacks involve the talking points used by Republicans. So if leading DLC activists insist upon helping the Republican Party win in 2008, whether by echoing their rhetorical assaults on Democrats or by openly supporting the presidential ambitions of non-Democrats like Michael Bloomberg, then I must renew my call to excommunicate the DLC from the Democratic Party.

Tags: 2008, DLC, Globophobia, populism, PPI, Will Marshall (all tags)

Comments

32 Comments

Re: Protecting Workers' Rights Does Not Amount to

It's legit concern that Democrats have to answer...but it's easy to answer.

Free trade/fair trade is a totally legit response.

Yes we have free trade with China but Chinese goods have to have costs attached for environmental rules that US competitors must abide by, health/safety rules, non-floating currency cost adjustments, health care costs, etc.

That's an argument the American public can understand. As importantly, it is a way to promote the world economy.

by BrionLutz 2006-12-29 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Protecting Workers' Rights Does Not Amount to

exactly right

by bruh21 2006-12-29 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Protecting Workers' Rights Does Not Amount to

Perhaps blogosphere should start referring to him as Right Wing Democrat Will Marshall, or perhaps Right Wing Trojan Hoarse Democrat Will Marshall.

(no relation)

by Alice Marshall 2006-12-29 01:18PM | 0 recs
"Globophobia"
There has been no one I know of more destructive to Democrats over the past few years than Marshall Wittman-- the DLCer who is now Lieberman's Press Secetary.  Every time I read Wittman quoted I am sure that he must be on Rove's payroll.  As I understand it he is a past Christian Coalition member, and a past Republican.  I'd say he is a present representative of both groups who the DLC hired to represent their views.
 So why does the Democratic Party continue to use people like this to beat themselves up and to beat us up--and to attack traditional Democrats and traditional Democratic values?
These people should switch to the Republican Party-- or form their own new party if they want to.
But so far they have chosen to call themselves Democrats but to work to destroy us.  Rove and his right-winger bunch surely must have invented them.
--sandra
by syolles 2006-12-29 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: "Globophobia"

So why does the Democratic Party continue to use people like this to beat themselves up and to beat us up--and to attack traditional Democrats and traditional Democratic values?

The Democratic party does not use him. As you said yourself, he now works for Lieberman.

by demondeac 2006-12-29 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Protecting Workers' Rights Does Not Amount to

Excommunicate the DLC from the Democratic Party because a few DLCers have bashed other Democrats? Thats ridiculous. Bloggers here bash DLC Democrats ALL THE TIME. So much for the big tent, or any tent.

by AC4508 2006-12-29 01:26PM | 0 recs
BIG difference


  The DLC uses Republican frames to bash Democrats. The DLC goes after Democrats for such sins as not supporting Bush's dishonest and failed Iraq war, pointing out the considerable downsides of unfettered free trade, not sucking up to the James Dobsons of the world... that kind of thing.  

 The blogosphere criticizes Democrats when they suck up to Republicans. And rightly so.

by Master Jack 2006-12-29 01:35PM | 0 recs
like this

"...Democrats criticize the President at our nations peril..."

by pjv 2006-12-30 12:12PM | 0 recs
Edwards

  Since I've seen no indication that Al Gore is running, I've kept a pretty open mind regarding the Dem presidential candidates for 2008. I know that the paragon of cowardice and gutlessness known as Hillary Clinton ranks at the very, very bottom of my list, and that there are good things about Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Clark, and most anyone else.

  Of all those, I'd been leaning to Edwards, simply because he's the only Democrat who consistently speaks to economic issues.

  Then came Edwards' announcement yesterday. Aggressive, to the point, and he actually criticized a popular Republican! Egads! So that got me a little firmer into Edwards' camp.

  But now we find out that the DLC hates him. That cements the decision in my head -- John Edwards IS the right Democrat for 2008.

by Master Jack 2006-12-29 01:31PM | 0 recs
Whoops


  Excuse the double post.

 If the DLC ran a hospital, I'd invest in a funeral home.

by Master Jack 2006-12-29 01:36PM | 0 recs
Will Marshall


  Why does he label himself a Democrat? Has anyone asked him?

 We already have one political party that suits his pro-war, anti-labor agenda. We don't need two of them. He might want to consider joining that other party. I hear they need people.

by Master Jack 2006-12-29 01:44PM | 0 recs
Just reading your paragraph quote above

gave me some nasty chills.  I am not for the DLC's ideas at all, I also am not for the BLUE Dogs, and I am not for the democrats that hide behind the "I can work across the aisle for bi-partisanship".

OOOOOOOOOOOweee, they make me cringe!

John Edwards is the candidate for 2008.

by dk2 2006-12-29 01:55PM | 0 recs
EVERY quote of DLC Sell outs using

'centrist' or 'moderate' should be IMMEDIATELY editorialized to point out that their definition is a right wing fascist definition, and it is fucking bullshit.

let's try a little reality speak?

progressives represent the silent majority, the REAL middle and the REAL center and the REAL bottom 90% of us working serfs.

the DLC represents to big guys selling the bottom 90% out.

is that so goddam hard?

rmm.

by seabos84 2006-12-29 02:21PM | 0 recs
All well and good, but...

Speaking from the other side of the Atlantic, and with the caveat that I'm not the typical foreigner (no such thing exists, there being six million of us of all nationalities, ages, incomes, etc.,) it has to be said that in certain respects Will Marshall has a point, and parts of Jonathan's argument seem a bit strawman.

Getting out of Iraq would not be globaphobia, and it would be welcomed by the rest of the world. That said, isolationism of the post-WW1 model could be construed as being such a thing, and it's one of the most disturbing tendencies exhibited by some parts of the netroots. America needs to accept (and mostly has done, for the next couple of decades at least) that it cannot solve all the world's problems on its own. But there is a place for alliances (and I don't mean with Palau or Blair's absurd and counterproductive sycophancy) and the US can do good things. I want to see a presidential candidate stress that though the US cannot save the world, it should not abandon it.

But there's no evidence that's what Marshall was saying (and does he still support the war? - all these sources relate to before the beginning of the Iraq debacle and Edwards is the textbook example of bad judgement being (mostly) forgiven.) He's primarily talking about trade.

Complete free trade is of use only to the insanely rich. Look at the world in the period 1870-1914. A period of ultra-liberal economic policy, and also of some of the worst poverty in industrialised nations ever.

It is clear that in America wages are higher than in the developing world. Workrate and quality of work may be higher, but in the present culture, that's not likely to count for much when costs need (what counts as need is proportional to the greed of the directors, obviously) to be cut. This is why the freer trade gets, the more American jobs are lost.

But protectionism has a cost. If you up tariffs, millions of farmers across the developing world lose their livelihoods. If you pander to Detroit, the developing world ignores safety and pollution standards, because they have to make something cheap enough to still compete with the Big Three after duty is imposed.

And this makes people hate your country. It doesn't cause terrorism on the Al-Qaeda model, as like most revolutionary organisations that is predominantly middle-class, but poverty in general and particularly poverty that can be traced back to American protectionism makes the world unsafe for Westerners.

I realise there's a conflict between pragmatism and idealism here. Improving the economic situation of a few hundred thousand Mid-Westerners is good, but it's likely to adversely affect millions of African farmers. But of course, African farmers can't vote in US elections. It's a conundrum (and not one that could be solved by international aid, even if budget hawks would let big increases there through.)

I'm not trying to put forward one view or the other, I'm very torn between the need to help those within your remit and the need to help humans in general, but no form of trade is ever going to be 'fair' to everybody, and I think it has to be accepted that there's no panacea in the current paradigm, only a least worst answer.

by Englishlefty 2006-12-29 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: All well and good, but...

This is right on. Setting up Marshall as the embodiment of all pro free-trade democrats is a strawman to deflect criticism of the nativist tendancies of some in the blogosphere. I am troubled by Marshall and his DLC brethren because of their propensity to criticize other Democrats. That said, I am strongly pro free trade, for any number of reasons, and it is well within the progressive movement for Marshall to call out protectionism.

I don't see how it is helpful for anyone to conflate trade and Iraq, but it seems obvious that strong international engagement is the basis of any successful progressive foreign policy.

by Ozymandias 2006-12-29 07:41PM | 0 recs
Strawman calling the kettle black

"That said, isolationism of the post-WW1 model could be construed as being such a thing, and it's one of the most disturbing tendencies exhibited by some parts of the netroots."

What part of the netroots? Do you see the Left Blogosphere going balls out against some intervention in Darfur? Or engagement in the Israeli/Palestinian struggle? Or Northern Ireland? Or Myanmar? Opposing the bogging down of the entire US combat capability in a single country is not "isolationism", it is a sign of living in a little place I call 'Reality".

People who complain about strawmen shouldn't be building their rhetorical house out of thatch. Opposing one-sided, corporatist trade agreements is not the same thing as throwing a Smoot-Hawley iron curtain around America and I am pretty tired of people who want to elide from one to another.

The day I see Free Traders in the street demanding that we tear the Sugar Quota system down I will be a little more sympathetic. But in my experience Free Traders are perfectly comfortable with the argument "Unlimited Free Trade as long as it generates profits for American Corporations! Oh but by the way be sure to protect the interests of American Wheat Farmers and Big Sugar!!"

by Bruce Webb 2006-12-30 05:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Strawman calling the kettle black

I don't see any consensus in Left Blogistan. Some people want to intervene in Darfur, Israel/Palestine, Myanmar, even Northern Ireland (although on the plus side, the enthusiasm for anything but recriminations there never seems to have ramped back up to the level of the bad old days since the Good Friday agreement.) Some people, influenced by the experience of Iraq and Vietnam, just don't seem to have any faith in the possibility of intervention helping any more.

I'd be the first to admit this argument is sketchy. I'm not providing sources, because aside from being too lazy to track down any that might exist, I just haven't seen that many that say it so explicitly. It's mostly visible in the frames of reference, in the way things are said, not how they are said. If that seems weak and subjective, that's because it is. I happen to believe it, but I make no demands that you do.

And as I say, it's a tendency. It's not fully grown, or I, as a decidedly internationalist (no faith in my own nation) Briton, wouldn't exactly feel comfortable here. However, for whatever reason (and I could think of several) the American view seems predominantly inward-looking, and if that's hinged to scepticism about the ability or necessity for America to do good in the world, then we could go back to old style progressivism. Which, let us remember, whilst it improved the lives of ordinary Americans, pointedly did nothing whilst Europe's democracies toppled one by one.

I'm scare-mongering, of course, but I hope you see why it is the prospect makes me want to do that.

As to the tearing down of sugar quotas, that's exactly what I'm getting at. Same for the Common Agricultural Policy in the EU. Such policies make it virtually impossible for developing nations to compete fairly, and prove that our current trade system is neither free nor fair.

However, there is one problem: the blogosphere loves the idea of helping our farmers, but it doesn't matter whether we're subsidising agribusiness or family farmers - either way the developing world loses out. How (and this is not a rhetorical question) do we help out family farms (and compete in the more rural American states) without screwing over poor farmers in the 3rd world?

by Englishlefty 2006-12-30 10:02AM | 0 recs
Marshall is a neocon, not a multilateralist

Lieberman/DLC and Marshall/SDUSA represent ideologically conservative viewpoints that have long been in favor of an imperlialist US foreign policy. The term "moderate" is just a marketing device to try to discredit the left side of the Democratic Party.

These issues go way back to the same old 1960s New Left vs Establishment fights we've been talking about the past few days. SDUSA promoted the George Meany anti-communist wing of the Democratic Party, as opposed to the left-liberal DSOC/Michael Harrington wing (ignoring the smaller NAM - New American Movement of the New Left). I mention these groups together because an important focus for all of them was Labor and the Labor wing of the Democratic Party. The big fight was over Vietnam, foreign policy, and which ideas would be endorsed by the Party.

The use of the term ideological is intentional. SDUSA was (is?) an organization of strategic political planners who came out of the anti-Soviet (marxist-trotskyite) circle around Max Shachtman (see link above). In other words, they aren't just a Dem interest group or supporters of this or that candidate. They have think tanks, funding, strategies, goals and unity of purpose. Establishment Labor gave a lot of funding to SDUSA, which shows us that things go back even further to anti-communist purges in US Labor Unions in the 50s and earlier.

Allthough considerably diminished in influence (I guess?), these groups have long been very active in the internal workings of the Dem Party establishment. When the 1960s new left abandoned working within the Party, it was because the Party establishment was too firmly in the hands of these right-wing anti-communist groups.

I wouldn't necessarily paint the DLC into the same ideological corner, but they are the present day representation of the same practical strategy:
 - Actively working against the left-wing of the Party
 - Actively pushing for Corporate interests over populist ones
 - Actively promoting US Intervention abroad.

We're a big tent, but as someone said above, the DLC is pushing a lot of Republican values, not Democratic ones. You can work for moderate, centrist positions, without going right-wing on us and trying to purge the left.

In comparison, the liberal-left-wing, the so-called "Democratic Wing of the Deomcratic Party" doesn't consist of starry-eyed socialist-radicals. We are pushing issues with strong popular support like Universal Health Care, Fair Trade, and withdrawal from Iraq.

It also seems to me that the left-liberal wing of the Party dominates the actual Party activists (those who go to caucuses and conventions), even if the party establishment and politicians remain more moderate.

by MetaData 2006-12-30 07:32AM | 0 recs
Can someone please tell me why...

..."protectionism" is supposed to be a bad thing?

Seriously, we used to have protectionism and a healthy economy.  Also, our being protectionist increased the likelihood that in other countries, their workers would try to act to improve their own working conditions (especially in Mexico).

So why is it bad?  Is this like "liberal" - they just convinced us it's a bad thing to be called?

by Avedon 2006-12-29 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Can someone please tell me why...

America used to have protectionism, but it used to import far fewer goods. The issue is how you square economic populism with increased costs of living because you'll have to use either more expensive American goods or foreign ones with a tariff slapped on.

And I don't quite see how you can seriously believe American protectionism would help other countries. It has, throughout history, been used to screw over trade rivals. If Mexico's goods suddenly stop becoming competitive because of tariffs, they're not going to suddenly improve workers' rights, because that costs money.

You can't successfully agitate for better rights from a position of weakness, and shutting workers out of American markets weakens them. Protectionism may be good for American workers, and the illegal immigrants who will be that much more eager to go there in search of work, but please don't patronise by claiming it's good for the world.

by Englishlefty 2006-12-30 02:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Can someone please tell me why...

I keep seeing this "increased cost of living" argument (from the libertarian right especially).  And then I go down to the nearby Goodwill and Salvation Army stores and see them turning away nearly 50% of the donations people attempt to bring in - things like televisions, furniture, cell phones, VCR and stereo equipment, and computer components especially.  There is so much unwanted cheap imported junk floating around that you can't even give it away.  The thrift stores don't even want it.

We are living in a wasteful, throwaway society and cheap goods being dumped on the world markets from China are a major culprit.

When I think of cost of living I think of necessities, especially the cost of buying a house.  This cost of living is way too high and needs to come back down to the reasonable levels of post-WWII America, where an entry level job with only the father working was enough income to afford to buy a house for most families.  When homes today start at $200,000, $500,000, even $800,000 in some markets, there is a problem.  The problem is the cost of living is too high.  The proliferation of cheap throwaway junk from China is also a problem, but it has nothing to do with the cost of living.  So let's establish from the start that the two are separate issues.

If the price of things like electronics, toys, and so on goes up as the result of bringing back protectionism and good union-wage jobs and cutting back (or better yet, cutting off completely) the dumping of cheap junk from third world countries onto the world markets, I say GOOD!  I see this as part of a broader need to move back to a less wasteful, less consumptive, less throwaway society.  A society in which things you buy have meaning, are repairable by the layman or by a local repair shop, are meant to last 15-30 years, and that you value because you know they were made in North America or Western Europe by unionized workers with cradle to grave job security being paid a decent living wage. Things that aren't just thrown away or cavalierly replaced on a whim because they were cheap, because they break, or because of some force beyond your control like planned obsolescence or the government mandating a forced switch over to digital television.

Thrown away electronics go - where?  Landfills?  They are full of lead, mercury, and goodness knows what else.

I would much rather have a society in which cell phones cost $1000 and are union-made in the U.S. or Western Europe.  People would consider it a major purchase, buy only one, expect it to last 20 years, and have it repaired instead of throwing it in the landfill.

The proliferation of cheap junk from China has done nothing to bring down the real cost of living.  If globalization is so good, somebody explain why I have a good paying job and a masters degree but still cannot afford to buy a house in NYC, San Diego, San Francisco, or Arlington, Virginia?

by Old Yeller 2006-12-31 02:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Can someone please tell me why...

And in the meantime, use Freecycle: http://www.freecycle.org/

Or see my blog on the topic, Spring Cleaning for Cheapskates and Ecopeople: http://badattitudes.com/MT/archives/0038 35.html

Somebody else needed (or at least wanted) my old junk, and somebody will want yours.

by joyful alternative 2006-12-31 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Can someone please tell me why...

I like the oxygen mask analogy. First put on your own mask, then your neighbors. Of course you have to protect your own people. And the anti-protectionists are led largely by the market-worshiping economists like Milton Friedman who don't think the livelihoods or lives of anyone making less than a million dollars a year are worth thinking about. There is widespread poverty in our country and we need to adress that.

That said, we are a part of the world and all need each other. So we need policies which will help both ourselves and the rest of the world by promoting trade.

Companies are not people. Whatever protection they may want should come strictly after that of real people both here and abroad. In particular, such things as wages and the environment, where unscrupulous companies may want to screw individuals, only governments (and wishfully, world bodies like the UN and World Bank) have the ability to counter the market forces.

The market is a natural force like gravity. Only blue-green algae don't have the guts to oppose it. Of course it is necessary, but for that reason should we ban bras and jockstraps? Skyscrapers use gravity but certainly do not succomb to it. We must use the world market with sufficient controls to enable the world to prosper.

by Hong Kong Chevy 2006-12-30 04:24AM | 0 recs
Tell me this:

Why is "protectionism" is supposed to be a bad thing?

Seriously, we used to have protectionism and a healthy economy.  Also, our being protectionist increased the likelihood that in other countries, their workers would try to act to improve their own working conditions (especially in Mexico).

So why is it bad?  Is this like "liberal" - they just convinced us it's a bad thing to be called?

by Avedon 2006-12-29 03:44PM | 0 recs
Globophobia?

Really? Globophobia? I thought that was the fear of balloons!

Seriously. I wish I had a more reputable source to offer as proof, but I'm pretty sure that globophobia is the fear of balloons. If you're going to make up words, at least make sure it isn't already used for something else, Will Marshall.

by Fitzy 2006-12-29 04:54PM | 0 recs
Globophobia? No, Globaloney!

Best response I've seen yet and the most appropriate.  Thanks!

It should also be pointed out that the word "globe" comes from the same root word as "glob", as in a glob of spit or an amorphous mass of gunk all running together.  

Global is a word we need to get out of our vocabulary as much as possible.  Change the vocabulary and you change the frames of reference and the rules of the game.  "Global" is by and large a business buzzword, and its heavy and inappropriate usage today is promoted by people with an agenda - a corporate agenda of deregulation, an anti-union agenda, a cheap labor agenda of forcing wages and labor costs down, etc.

Global warming, okay, the use of global probably makes sense there, although surely there could be a better term.  "Atmospheric overheating"?

But in most cases the term "global" is being used where it is clearly inappropriate and makes no sense other than as a vacuous buzzword.  In most cases terms like these are more appropriate and should be used instead:

International
Multinational
Earth
World or Worldwide

I call bullshit on the entire enterprise of "global" as a buzzword.  It's time to take that vacuous corporate buzzword out of use for good.

by Old Yeller 2006-12-31 01:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Protecting Workers' Rights Does Not Amount to

Wow, talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

First of all the piece being linked to doesen't even make it clear that Will Marshall's remarks were in reference to John Edwards or his campaign for the Presidency. All it says is that Edwards' aides think Johnny Sunshine has an edge while the other part quotes Marshall handwringing over the rise of  "Globophobia" within the party, most likely cribbed from one of the fifty jillion DLC policy "briefs" on it's website. Is there any indication that Will Marshall was referring to John Edwards?

"It should come as little surprise that Marshall, a DLCer who strongly advocated for America to wage war on Iraq, would voice concerns about the candidacy of someone who now opposes the war and would like to see an end to American involvement in the country."

Oh please, that's a complete red herring. Number one, the war in Iraq wasn't even the issue being discussed, two, opposition to the war and support for withdrawal is now the majority position in the country, hardly making John Edwards Howard Dean and the idea that jhe's franctically trying to take down Edwards because of his Iraq War position spurious at best. Third, once again reiterated, where is the evidence that Marshall is even referring to Edwards and his candidacy (On the domestic front much less the war).

"Facing the prospect of no longer having the ear of the powers within the party, Marshall has no choice but to dredge up a strawman argument:

The first sentence is just ridiculously hyperbolic. The DLC is already an embattered organization with many PR problems but regardless of it's current status, do you really intend to imply that the stakes of whether or not Will Marshall will have an ear of the powers within the party rests on John Edwards not being president? Are you serious?

"that any Democrat opposed to transforming the Middle East at the barrel of the American gun or in favor of protecting American workers' rights in trade agreements is a "globophobe." "

Wow, talk about strawmen indeed. Can you please identify the sentence where Will Marhsall states anyone opposed to " transforming the Middle East at the barrel of the American gun" is a globophobe? Can you identify the specific context that leads you to believe when he's referring to globophobia he's referring to opposition to that?  Do you think perhaps linking opposition to "transforming the Middle East at the barrel of the American gun" and "protecting worker's rights" might be a little disingenuous?

"Implementing a trade policy that ensures America can compete on an even playing field by mandating some standards for workplace safety, protecting the enviroment and the like is not "globophobia."   "

This is an issue of legitimate disagreement, the sentiments that "American Jobs Belong in America"  but at least this a debatable disgareement, the rest of what you typed;

"Using America's soft power through diplomacy instead of rushing to use America's military forces when not necessary is not "globophobia." Acknowledging that escalating the War in Iraq by increasing the number of American troops involved is not "globophobia." Strengthening America's ties to its allies throughout the world is not "globophobia." "

Three more red herrings. Can you please cite where Will Marshall refers to these in the context of globophobia? Can you cite anything that ledes credence to the idea that when Will Marshall is poo-pooing the rise of "Globophobia" he's referring to "Strengthening America's ties to its allies throughout the world" instead of say, opposition to International trade agreements?

"As Chris has written before, there is no place in the Democratic Party for those who make ad hominem attacks on other Democrats"

I assume there is a place for those who hyperventilate to the point of ridiculousness over thinly perceieved slights against their preferred Presidential candidates?

You're usually one of the smart ones here but yours was a really really stupid post.

by DRR7979 2006-12-29 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Protecting Workers' Rights Does Not Amount to
It's actually even a useful slur because it's so silly and easy to refute
Hopefully they will come up with lots of nonsense like this
by jimpol 2006-12-29 06:04PM | 0 recs
"excommunicate them... "

Can't we just laugh in their sorry faces?  Really, they have no grassroots support.  Where, outside the confines of Washington D.C., do people like Will Marshall gain their support?  It's an honest question.

Take all the points about Edwards and Iraq that Jonathan makes and put them aside...  The fact that Will Marshall put a bug in the ear of this WSJ reporter and is quoted as the negative "balance" to the Edwards announcment goes to show what kind of a guy he is.  He's willing to talk negatively about the party on a frickin' regular basis.  He's one of the reliable go-to guys that reporters use to get the dirt on the Dems.  I'm sick of it.

And why there's people out there vigorously defending Marshall like DRR7979 on this thread is beyond me.  Maybe Singer went overboard about this one sentence in a WSJ piece, but there's a boatload of context and bad acts by Marshall that preceded this one instance.

by wintersnowman 2006-12-29 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Protecting Workers' Rights Does Not Amount to

Bloomberg, if he runs, will run as a Democrat.  You watch.

by Lawnguylander 2006-12-30 03:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Protecting Workers' Rights Does Not Amount to

CA-10

by Bob Brigham 2006-12-30 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Protecting Workers' Rights Does Not Amount to

Isn't there some way out of the 'free trade' vs. 'protectionism' box to get to some form of real 'fair trade'?  Why can't global trade treaties require certain basic standards for goods produced and the workers who produce them--living wage, worker's rights, health and safety standard, etc.  I  see that wage differentials by country would still be an issue, but it would still be better than what we have.  Is there any movement around this?

by jmf 2006-12-30 09:29AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads