Point One: Free Trade Is Conservative. Free trade is the most fundamental issue of conservatism. Why do I say that? Because free trade is the issue that began it all when Adam Smith opined about the power of the invisible hand to establish market prices. All of conservatism and its endorsement of the freedom of individuals to chart their own course flows from that. Hence, any true conservative should support free trade, both within our own markets/economy and in our dealings with other countries.
What’s more, the history of free trade has been a stunning success at bringing peaceful growth to the countries involved. Countries that engage in free trade grow faster, create thriving middle classes, and generally stop going to war.
Our history, however, hasn’t always been pro-free market. In fact, the GOP has often favored tariffs and other stupidity. But since the 1960s, when Milton Friedman came along, free trade has been a fundamental pillar of conservatism... at least until the populists showed up in 2010.
Democrats, on the other hand, hate free trade... or claim to. They whine about unfair trade practices and how free trade means shipping jobs overseas and how big evil corporations use free trade to weaken our labor and environmental laws.
Hence, it is interesting to see Obama in the position of defending free trade while the rest of the Democratic party seeks to stop him. So is he a secret conservative? Well, no. The truth is that there has always been a bit of fraud regarding free trade and the Democrats. By and large, the Democrats in Washington are fine with free trade. They understand the benefits. They just need to avoid being seen favoring it, so they rail against these treaties while letting the President take the heat... as he’s doing now.
Point Two: Obama v. Warren. Generally, I take Democratic fights with a grain of salt. And I would normally say that any fight between Obama and Elizabeth Warren is political theater. They are intellectual fellow travelers. This time, however, the fighting seems to have gotten rather personal. Indeed, Obama has made comments that sound like he’s suggesting her criticism is stupid. Specifically, he said:
“The notion that I had this massive fight with Wall Street to make sure we don’t have what happened in 2007 and 2008, and then I sign a provision to unravel it? I’d have to be pretty stupid.”It sounds like he is offended. I also go back to the points that (1) Obama does not take criticism well and (2) he particularly does not take criticism from women well. What’s more interesting about this, however, it that usually in the past, Democratic presidents have avoided firing back on potential Democratic presidential candidates as they try to pander to the electorate by claiming to be more pure than the sitting president. Obama, however, just fired back. That makes me wonder if Obama isn’t going to be more interested in protecting his legacy than he will be in helping whoever is running to replace him. Could get interesting to watch.
Thoughts?
"he particularly does not take criticism from women well. "
ReplyDeleteReally?
The first in our Summer of Marvel series is up! Today, Avengers: Age of Ultron!
ReplyDeleteLINK
I love that picture of Warren in her Fakahontas garb..
ReplyDeleteI don't think that ANYONE is allowed to disagree with the narcissist...Warren in this case, Menendez in the case of Iran sanctions and freedom to build bombs, and Republicans are audited by the IRS.
ReplyDeleteI think he is trying to look tough on his own party since Warren isn't running for anything. She is the perfect soft target. It also makes it look like he is engaging with Congress and trying to actually negotiate with them if he takes on one of his own. Notice that he decided NOT to pick his typical fight with the Senate on their recent vote to require that the President get submit to and get approval from Congress for any deal with Iran. The vote was 99 for/1 against.
ReplyDeleteBtw, I would expect that anything that Warren has in her closet that can be used as political ammunition will start to be an issue. I would expect that any of her college or employment applications that might include her tenuous Native American status will crop up especially if she received protected/affirmative action preferential treatment. Remember Menendez's 14-count corruption charges from the DOJ after he went up against Obama in the Iran deal.
Supposedly, there was once a tradition of presidents refraining from commenting on their successors and would-be successors. If that's true, the tradition has been eroding since I was a kid. That said, if there ever was such a tradition, Obama seems particularly incapable of keeping his mouth shut about other people seeking the same job.
ReplyDeleteWhat I suspect usually happens in a situation like this is the disagreement is preplanned and the specifics are agreed upon. It can actually be used to either's advantage. Obama can use Warren to publically disagree about one aspect and still look neutral.
ReplyDeleteWhat this looks like is a spat between a political novice and a political idiot. I'll let you figure out which is which.
In talking to friends who were in the military, I can't find a one a one who has any confidence in Obama and everyone of them believe that a Hillary or Warren presidency would be disastrous for this country.
ReplyDeleteHowdy folks! Sorry for the delay.
ReplyDeleteKit, Obama has struck me for a long time now as being sexist. His harshest criticisms are always aimed at women. It's too bad the MSM can't notice things like that!
ReplyDeleteCritch, That's my favorite too. She is such a great example of how leftists think nothing of lying to exploit their supposed good deeds.
ReplyDeleteLL, Obama is easily the least tolerant President we've ever had. He makes Nixon look like Gandhi.
ReplyDeleteBev, An excellent thought indeed. The Menendez this always struck me as fascinating. For year, he basically skated through investigation after investigation, almost taunting the government to try to catch him. Then he crossed Obama and suddenly he's indicted and going down in flames. That can't be a coincidence.
ReplyDeletetryanmax, I honestly don't recall Ford, Carter, Reagan or Bush 1 saying anything bad about their predecessors. I don't recall what Clinton said if anything, but I think he was nasty about both Reagan and Bush at first, and then just Bush for awhile. I know Bush W never said anything bad. Obama based his entire presidency on attacking W.
ReplyDeleteKoshcat, I think that's usually the case. In this instance, the one thing that makes me wonder is Obama's rather nasty tone. It seem unusual for this kind of situation.
ReplyDeleteCritch, Obama's leadership has been bizarre. Publicly, he acts like a tough talking peacenik (a strange contradiction) and then in policy he blasts away at anyone who offends him... kind of randomly.
ReplyDeleteHillary would be the definition of paralysis by analysis.
Warren would try to prove she could go her whole term without calling on the military.
OT: NFL suspends Tom Brady 4 games... takes 2016 first round pick and 2017 fourth round pick from Patriots.
ReplyDeleteAndrew,
ReplyDeleteToo harsh or too light?
Too light in my opinion. What they did to the Saints was (1) ban the head coach for the entire year, (2) ban the GM for the entire year, (3) ban several lower level coaches for most of the year -- one was banned "for life" which was about three years, (4) ban three players for most of the year, (5) take away draft picks, and (5) fine them.
ReplyDeleteAnd what the Saints did was even less of a competitive issue than what Brady did.
Ah.
ReplyDeleteGood to see you well again, Andrew.
ReplyDeleteNothing is an unqualified good. Free trade for example is reducing US jobs which is, in turn, impacting Mexican employment figures in California. Free trade with China has turned them into an economic superpower while allowing them to copy technology for such weapons as the DF-21 carrier killing missile and their newest asats capable of taking out GPS satellites. (Thanks Loral!) Best of all, while free trade lowers the cost of consumer products it also lowers employment which aids and abets sucking more Americans away from manufacturing jobs and into government "service" jobs like nanny state regulators, do nothing administrators and other crops of the Democratic party vote farms.