What do Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama have in common?
They all love corporate trade deals that codify the destruction of American industry and undermine worker wages here and in other nations. And while poll after poll for decades now, show how most Americans oppose these deals, the deals pass one after the other.
Corporate media pundits constantly push putative Democratic Party leaders such as Obama and Clinton to be "bi-partisan" with an opposition party that normally as a matter of principle does not compromise. The opposition party seeks gridlock when not in power--and then runs against the other side for not doing anything. Trade deals present, for putative Democratic Party leaders especially, a chance to be bi-partisan in a manner corporate media loves, and on an issue which elite corporate media bobble-heads believe is important for the national interest (though this issue becomes less obviously "national" each time...).
It is interesting to me that American politicians rarely run on any platform favoring these trade deals, yet these deals magically get passed in off years or early in the election year. For two decades now, most Republicans in Congress tend to vote in favor of these deals and most Democrats against. One would think Democratic Party candidates would highlight that difference and run on an anti-trade platform. They don't, however, because they want to raise money from corporate interests. So elections tend not to turn on what the bobble heads in corporate media call a "technical" issue. Of course, these trade deals are fundamental and anything but "technical."
Heck, one may say gay marriage is more technical since the issue concerns merely a slice of Americans while trade deals affect us all most deeply and directly. But as Walter Lippmann wrote nearly a century ago, the goal of the American elite was to take such issues out of the public discourse--what Lippmann and others called "manufacturing consent."
Is this a conspiracy on the part of corporate media? No. It is simply a dovetailing of "giving people what they want" aligning itself with the desire of the elite to not bother people with such "technical" things. If we want to find out about the TPP, we merely have to step outside "mainstream" media. The megaphone of corporate media is sure loud, though. For example, people are able to tell me the latest with Amanda Bynes and Lindsay Lohan. Somehow most of us know about the antics of those two troubled young women. And for those who watch the bobble head shows or read certain bloggers, we know what politician or pundit just said what outrageous statement in the last 24 hours. And we are nearly constantly treated with talk about Hillary's chances for the presidency in 2016. Also, did we see the latest cat video on the Internet?
But tell me, who knows about the Trans Pacific Trade deal? This
AP wire article tells the latest inside political scoop. But note, when reading it, the manner of the writer who is well trained to look upon this issue as a "technical" one that we little people shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about--it's good for us, doncha see...
If corporate media was really interested in a discussion of the merits of this issue in the way gay marriage is discussed, we'd hear much more from Lori Wallach and Public Citizen, who are on top of this issue in a way that is most salutary. Here
is the sub-home page from Public Citizen on the TPP.
And please don't tell me, as a fellow liberal minded pro-Democratic Party person, that Obama doesn't really care about this issue, or that he didn't run on it, and that he will listen to the constituency of the Democratic Party. Sorry. Obama is very serious about this issue and wants it passed with no interference from labor or environmental interests. He did tell us his position during the confetti thrown up during the 2012 campaign, ever so quietly with a compliant corporate owned media that knows most workers who hear about such deals hate the deals. And plus, Obama has no intention to listen to labor or environmental interests. None.
This is business. Not Main Street business, but instead international corporate global hedge funded business. And that business needs to get done. And Alexander Hamilton, who spoke and wrote so highly in favor of tariff policy to build the American nation (see Federalist Paper no. 11
and his 1791 Report on Manufactures