Free Trade vs. Fair Trade: McCain vs. Obama, War and Economics -- A Comparison to The Boston Tea Party, And More...

I do not profess to be an economist. I am writing this essay as a layperson -- as a Canadian citizen trying to get to the bottom of the issue of the free trade aggreement and how it applies -- good and bad -- to both Americans and Camadians. I am particularly interested in how the subject matter has beome a focal point of the American election and on one of the major philosophical differences between McCain (The Republicans) and Obama (The Democrats).

Mcain said in a speech that he did not want to turn the clock back in time to 'protectionism' meaning 'protectionist tariffs'. But think about it for a minute. Protectionist tariffs have always had their reasons for being there althour some reasons may be more justified and reasonable than others. You have to ask yourself: Who are the tariffs protecting and/or benefiting and for what reason(s)? Are they fair and justified tariffs/taxes that are protecting the ordinary citiziens of a country or are they an act of government narcissisism or corporate narcissisim or a combination of both ('government-corporate collusion')-- with no benefit, only loss and pain, to the ordinary working or non-working citizens of a country (i.e., in this case, either the U.S. or Canada).

Now, I am going to do something here that may seem a little funny but please bear with me as I draw out this comparison.

Probably the most famous example of tariffs in American history is 'The Boston Tea Party'. Let's take a few minutes and go back into American history and see if any of the political and economic dynamics going on around the time of The Boston Tea Party bear any resemblance to the dynamics of the controversy surrounding the current Free Trade Agreement between The U.S., Canada, Mexico, and whatever other countries may now or at some point in the future become a part of this agreement, or a similar one.

Indeed, I went into this comparison blind and came out with what I believe are some very enlightening comparisons and similarities...Indeed, I think it is worth our while to look at two different renditions of 'The Boston Tea Party' on the internet today to get a little better picture of what was happening back then. The second of the two renditions includes an 'eye witness' account to the event...

...................................................................................

From Wikipedia...

This article is about a 1773 American protest. For other uses, see Boston Tea Party (disambiguation).

This 1846 lithograph has become a classic image of the Boston Tea Party.Taxation in the United States


This article is part of a series on
Taxation


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Boston Tea Party was an act of direct action protest by the American colonists against British Government in which they destroyed many crates of tea bricks belonging to the British East India Company on ships in Boston Harbor. The incident, which took place on Thursday, December 16, 1773, has been seen as helping to spark the American Revolution and remains to this day one of the most iconic events of the era.



Background
The Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Acts of 1767 angered colonists regarding British decisions on taxing the colonies despite a lack of representation in the Westminster Parliament. One of the protesters was John Hancock, a wealthy Bostonian. In 1768, Hancock's ship Liberty was seized by customs officials, and he was charged with smuggling. He was defended by John Adams, and the charges were eventually dropped. However, Hancock later faced several hundred more indictments.

Hancock organized a boycott of tea from China sold by the British East India Company, whose sales in the colonies then fell from 320,000 pounds (145,000 kg) to 520 pounds (240 kg). By 1773, the company had large debts, huge stocks of tea in its warehouses and no prospect of selling it because smugglers, such as Hancock, were importing tea from the Netherlands without paying import taxes. In response to this the British government passed the Tea Act, which allowed the East India Company to sell tea to the colonies directly and without "payment of any customs or duties whatsoever" in Britain, instead paying the much lower American duty. This tax break allowed the East India Company to sell tea for half the old price and cheaper than the price of tea in England, enabling them to undercut the prices offered by the colonial merchants and smugglers.[citation needed]

Many American colonists, particularly the wealthy smugglers, resented this favored treatment[citation needed] of a major company, which employed lobbyists and wielded great influence in Parliament. Protests resulted in both Philadelphia and New York, but it was those in Boston that made their mark in history. Still reeling from the Hutchinson letters, Bostonians suspected the removal of the Tea Tax was simply another attempt by the British parliament to squash American freedom. Samuel Adams, wealthy smugglers, and others who had profited from the smuggled tea called for agents and consignees of the East India Company tea to abandon their positions; consignees who hesitated were terrorized through attacks on their warehouses and even their homes.[1]


A protest notice.The first of many ships which arrived at the Boston harbor carrying the East India Company tea was Dartmouth arriving in late November 1773. A standoff ensued between the port authorities and the Sons of Liberty. Samuel Adams whipped up the growing crowd by demanding a series of protest meetings. Coming from both the city and outlying areas, thousands attended these meetings; every meeting larger than the one before. The crowds shouted defiance not only at the British Parliament, the East India Company, and Dartmouth but at Governor Thomas Hutchinson as well, who was still struggling to have the tea landed. On the night of December 16, the protest meeting, held at Boston's Old South Meeting House, was the largest yet seen. An estimated 8,000 people were said to have attended.

The owner of the Dartmouth and its captain agreed that the tea would be returned to England and similar promises were obtained from the owners of two more vessels en route, the Eleanor and the Beaver. However, Governor Hutchinson ordered the harbor to be blocked and he would not allow any tea-bearing vessels to leave until they had been unloaded.


Event

1789 engravingOn Thursday, December 16, 1773, the evening before the tea was due to be landed, Captain Roach appealed to Governor Hutchinson to allow his ship to leave without unloading its tea. When Roach returned and reported Hutchinson's refusal to a massive protest meeting, Samuel Adams said to the assembly "This meeting can do nothing more to save the country". As though on cue, the Sons of Liberty thinly disguised as Narragansett[2] [3] Indians and armed with small hatchets and clubs, headed toward Griffin's Wharf (in Boston Harbor), where lay Dartmouth and the newly-arrived Beaver and Eleanour. Swiftly and efficiently, casks of tea were brought up from the hold to the deck, reasonable proof that some of the "Indians" were, in fact, longshoremen. The casks were opened and the tea dumped overboard; the work, lasting well into the night, was quick, thorough, and efficient. By dawn, over 342 casks or 90,000 lbs (45 tons) of tea worth an estimated £10,000 (£953,000[4], or $1.87 million USD[5] in 2007 currency) had been consigned to waters of Boston harbor.[1] Nothing else had been damaged or stolen, except a single padlock accidentally broken and anonymously replaced not long thereafter.

Tea washed up on the shores around Boston for weeks. Attempts were made by the citizens of Boston to carry off some of the tea. A small number of small boats were rowed where the tea was visible, then beating it with oars to render it unusable.[6]

The fourth East India Company ship carrying tea did not arrive with the other three because it had run aground in Provincetown. All fifty-eight tea chests were salvaged and put onto a fishing schooner, which arrived safely in Boston and into Bostonian's teapots.[7]


Reaction
Hutchinson's actions had caused a crisis. He had been urging London to take a hard line with the Sons of Liberty. If he had done what the other royal governors had done and let the ship owners and captains resolve the issue with the colonists, the Dartmouth, Eleanor, and the Beaver would have left without unloading any tea. Lord North said that if the colonists had stuck with nonimportation for another six months the tea tax would have been repealed[8]. In February, 1775, Britain passed the Conciliatory Resolution which ended taxation for any colony which satisfactorily provided for the imperial defence and the upkeep of imperial officers. The Tea Act was repealed with the Taxation of Colonies Act 1778.

In Britain, even those politicians considered friends of the colonies were appalled and this act united all parties there against the colonies. The Prime Minister Lord North said, "Whatever may be the consequence, we must risk something; if we do not, all is over".[9] The British government felt this was an action which could not be unpunished and responded by closing the port of Boston and put in place other laws that were known as the "Intolerable Acts", also called the Coercive Acts, or Punitive Acts. In addition, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Joseph Warren, and Benjamin Church were charged with the "Crime of High Treason".[10]

In the colonies, Benjamin Franklin stated that the destroyed tea must be repaid. Robert Murray, a New York merchant went to Lord North with three other merchants and offered to pay for the losses, but the offer was turned down.[11] A number of colonists were inspired to carry out similar acts, such as the burning of the Peggy Stewart. The Boston Tea Party eventually proved to be one of the many catalysts which led to the American Revolutionary War. At the very least, the Boston Tea Party and the reaction that followed served to rally support for revolutionaries in the thirteen colonies who were eventually successful in their fight for independence.

Many colonists, in Boston and elsewhere in the country, pledged to abstain from tea drinking as a protest, turning instead to "Balsamic hyperion" (made from raspberry leaves), other herbal infusions, and coffee. This social protest movement away from tea drinking, however, was not long-lived.


Influence
The Boston Tea Party is known around the world and has been inspirational to other noted activists and reform leaders. For example, Erik H. Erikson records in his book "Gandhi's Truths" that when Mahatma Gandhi met with the British viceroy in 1930 after the Indian salt protest campaign, Gandhi took some duty-free salt from his shawl and said, with a smile, that the salt was "to remind us of the famous Boston Tea Party."

American political activists have invoked the Tea Party as a symbol of rebellion against the establishment. For example, in the 2008 presidential race, a moneybomb fundraiser for candidate Ron Paul scheduled for the anniversary of December 16, 2007,[12] raised over $6.0 million.

A Boston-based team in the defunct North American Soccer League called themselves the New England Tea Men. They were owned by the British company Lipton Tea, so the name was intended slightly ironically.

.....................................................................................

The Boston Tea Party, 1773

Victory in the French and Indian War was costly for the British. At the war's conclusion in 1763, King George III and his government looked to taxing the American colonies as a way of recouping their war costs. They were also looking for ways to reestablish control over the colonial governments that had become increasingly independent while the Crown was distracted by the war. Royal ineptitude compounded the problem. A series of actions including the Stamp Act (1765), the Townsend Acts (1767) and the Boston Massacre (1770) agitated the colonists, straining relations with the mother country. But it was the Crown's attempt to tax tea that spurred the colonists to action and laid the groundwork for the American Revolution.


A contemporary (and inaccurate) illustration
of the Boston Massacre by Paul Revere.

It was instrumental in enflaming public
outrage.

The colonies refused to pay the levies required by the Townsend Acts claiming they had no obligation to pay taxes imposed by a Parliament in which they had no representation. In response, Parliament retracted the taxes with the exception of a duty on tea - a demonstration of Parliament's ability and right to tax the colonies. In May of 1773 Parliament concocted a clever plan. They gave the struggling East India Company a monopoly on the importation of tea to America. Additionally, Parliament reduced the duty the colonies would have to pay for the imported tea. The Americans would now get their tea at a cheaper price than ever before. However, if the colonies paid the duty tax on the imported tea they would be acknowledging Parliament's right to tax them. Tea was a staple of colonial life - it was assumed that the colonists would rather pay the tax than deny themselves the pleasure of a cup of tea.

The colonists were not fooled by Parliament's ploy. When the East India Company sent shipments of tea to Philadelphia and New York the ships were not allowed to land. In Charleston the tea-laden ships were permitted to dock but their cargo was consigned to a warehouse where it remained for three years until it was sold by patriots in order to help finance the revolution.

In Boston, the arrival of three tea ships ignited a furious reaction. The crisis came to a head on December 16, 1773 when as many as 7,000 agitated locals milled about the wharf where the ships were docked. A mass meeting at the Old South Meeting House that morning resolved that the tea ships should leave the harbor without payment of any duty. A committee was selected to take this message to the Customs House to force release of the ships out of the harbor. The Collector of Customs refused to allow the ships to leave without payment of the duty. Stalemate. The committee reported back to the mass meeting and a howl erupted from the meeting hall. It was now early evening and a group of about 200 men disguised as Indians assembled on a near-by hill. Whopping war chants, the crowd marched two-by-two to the wharf, descended upon the three ships and dumped their offending cargos of tea into the harbor waters.

Most colonists applauded the action while the reaction in London was swift and vehement. In March 1774 Parliament passed the Intolerable Acts which among other measures closed the Port of Boston. The fuse that led directly to the explosion of American independence was lit.


Take your tea and shove it.

George Hewes was a member of the band of "Indians" that boarded the tea ships that evening. His recollection of the event was published some years later. We join his story as the group makes its way to the tea-laden ships:

"It was now evening, and I immediately dressed myself in the costume of an Indian, equipped with a small hatchet, which I and my associates denominated the tomahawk, with which, and a club, after having painted my face and hands with coal dust in the shop of a blacksmith, I repaired to Griffin's wharf, where the ships lay that contained the tea. When I first appeared in the street after being thus disguised, I fell in with many who were dressed, equipped and painted as I was, and who fell in with me and marched in order to the place of our destination.


The Boston Tea Party

When we arrived at the wharf, there were three of our number who assumed an authority to direct our operations, to which we readily submitted. They divided us into three parties, for the purpose of boarding the three ships which contained the tea at the same time. The name of him who commanded the division to which I was assigned was Leonard Pitt. The names of the other commanders I never knew. We were immediately ordered by the respective commanders to board all the ships at the same time, which we promptly obeyed. The commander of the division to which I belonged, as soon as we were on board the ship, appointed me boatswain, and ordered me to go to the captain and demand of him the keys to the hatches and a dozen candles. I made the demand accordingly, and the captain promptly replied, and delivered the articles; but requested me at the same time to do no damage to the ship or rigging. We then were ordered by our commander to open the hatches and take out all the chests of tea and throw them overboard, and we immediately proceeded to execute his orders, first cutting and splitting the chests with our tomahawks, so as thoroughly to expose them to the effects of the water.

In about three hours from the time we went on board, we had thus broken and thrown overboard every tea chest to be found in the ship, while those in the other ships were disposing of the tea in the same way, at the same time. We were surrounded by British armed ships, but no attempt was made to resist us.

...The next morning, after we had cleared the ships of the tea, it was discovered that very considerable quantities of it were floating upon the surface of the water; and to prevent the possibility of any of its being saved for use, a number of small boats were manned by sailors and citizens, who rowed them into those parts of the harbor wherever the tea was visible, and by beating it with oars and paddles so thoroughly drenched it as to render its entire destruction inevitable."

References:
Hawkes, James A, Retrospect of the Boston Tea-Party, with a Memoir of George R. T. Hewes... (1834) reprinted in Commager, Henry Steele, Morris Richard B., The Spirit of 'Seventy-Six vol I (1958); Labaree, Benjamin Woods, The Boston Tea Party (1964).

How To Cite This Article:
"The Boston Tea Party, 1773," EyeWitness to History, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com (2002).

.................................................................................

Now you might ask yourself; What possible comparison and connection can be made between the political and economic dynamics of The Boston Tea Party and the current Free Trade controversy?

Well, my contention is that The Boston Tea Party provides a very good working template of both the best and the worst in American -- and Canadian -- democracy.

What The Boston Tea Party shows is an evolving 'power dialectic' and 'psychological tension' between The Government of Britain and the owners of The East India Tea Compoany on the one side of the ledger and the ordinatry working American people on the other side of the ledger. These are some of the factors that were involved in this evolving power dialectic complete with its rising psycyhological, philosophical, and emotional tensions.

1. Political and Economic Lobbyism (Political and Economic Collusion between the wealthy owners of large private corporations and members of the British Government -- which usually involves an exchange of 'money' for 'political and economic favoritism' at the expense of ordinary citizens who are being hurt by this collusion)
2. Non Political and Economic Representation on the part of the ordinary working American people
3. Taxation without representation.
4. The desire of the ordinary American people to be suitably represented in the government that is/was ruling their lives.

................................................................................

1. Lobbyism

It amazes me that political and economic lobbyism goes right back to the beginning of American -- and probably Canadian -- history. Indeed, with all due respect, we can probably say that we -- meaning both America and Canada -- learned 'the dynamics of lobbyism' from the British. This is not to scapegoat Britain on this matter because both America and Canada are 'adult countries' now, fully capable -- but obviously to this point in their respective histories -- still not sufficiently motivated and willing to feret out all the different but associated democratic pathologies and corruptions that are tied into the dynamics of political and economic lobbyism.

I would like to see a couple of different authors -- strongly educated in American and Canadian history respectively -- to write two different books on: 'The History of Political Lobbyism in America' (and Canada) respectively. I think there has been a book just written on 'Lobbyism in Washington'. I will refer you to it -- and like to read it myself -- if or when I find it. It should be an interesting read.

1.A. Different Types of Lobbyism

There are many, many different types of lobbyism -- all different variations on a theme -- corporate lobbyism, capitalist lobbyism, socialist lobbyism, conservative lobbyism, liberal lobbyism, ethnic lobbyism, feminist lobbyism, religious lobbyism, special interest lobbyism (guns, no guns...), campaign lobbyism, 'kickback' lobbyism, lobbyism for survival, lobbyism for greed...

I don't know much at all about the 'ins and outs' of lobbyism in either Washington or Ottawa -- I would have to research this much more, and until then can only surmise, or base my thoughts on the 'lobbyist scandals' that hit the media, such as The Gomery Report and 'The Liberal Adscam'...

However, being a taxi and mobility dispatcher by my day-job profession, I see and experience lobbyism every day at work. (I am sure that all of my 'un-naive' readers have seen and experienced how lobbyism works in their own professions and jobs as well.) Technically speaking, the taxi drivers who 'work the streets' and who 'work the public dispatch radios' are not lobbists. In contrast, the taxi drivers who work the phones to the dispatch office, and who work the front and back offices of the taxi/mobility company -- are. In effect, they are working behind the scenes and attempting to 'collude' with dispatchers and/or managers -- they are not working democratically and transparently with the other taxi drivers who are not working the phones or the front or back offices of the taxi company. In effect, they are looking for an edge -- for preferential treatment -- over the other drivers.

Now I could write a pretty long and detailed essay on 'lobbyism' in the taxi business -- at least on the areas that I have seen and experienced. I would even argue that some of this lobbyism, pragmatically speaking, is functional and/or necessary to both the drivers and the company -- especially in a business where many taxi drivers are not making enough money from the calls that they get over the dispatch radio, and/or are getting killed by skyrocketing gas prices, and/or the dispatch office needs' to 'pre-assign' orders/calls that may not otherwise be covered properly over the regular dispatch radio (because of their distance away from the main action...)

However, that is not what we are here to talk about. Let's go back to The Boston Tea Part and the wrath of the American people at 'taxation without representation' -- with the British government and The East India Tea Company being the two main protagonist-culprits.

'Parliament' consisted of 1. British politicians and 2. Lobbyist-Owner-Representatives from The East India Tea Company. Not an American colonist to be found in parliament. No democracy. And yet the British government still wanted tax and duty money from the American colonists even though they had no representation in government. And lo and behold we find out that Britain had just been involved in a couple of wars (with France and India), was badly in debt because of these wars, and needed to get more tax money from its citizens and/or colonists-- from somewhere -- anywhere -- to pay for them.

Sound familiar? An economy gone bad -- a country gone bad -- by too much time and money spent at war.

It sure sounds familiar to me.

2. 'Ethnic, Cultural, and National Identification With The Aggressor'

Now let's turn in a different -- but still very relevant -- direction. There is a psychological process called 'Identification With The Aggressor'. Freud's daughter -- Anna Freud -- I believe was the first psychoanalyst to label this phenomenon. Or perhaps it was identified even earlier than this by Sandor Ferenczi -- with or without the name attached to it.

I have given a number of associated names to this phenomenon such as: 'Identification With The Rejector' and 'Identification With The Victimizer', and 'Identification With The Abandoner', and 'Identification With The Betrayor'...

These are all different variations on the same psychological them. The victimized copies the victimizer and then victimizes someone else in the same fashion that he or she was victimized.

We can even see this psychological process play itself out on both a cultural and a national and international forum.

Germany -- or what used to be the different parts of Germany -- is victimized and humiliated and conquered by Napoleon and his French army. From national -- or 'pre-national' -- traumacy, 'national compensation' starts to take effect and play itself out...German nationalism is trumpeted by philosophers like Fichte and a host of others...(I won't include Nietzsche here). Divided, pre-nationalist Germany was weak -- and fell to Napoleon. United, Germany became stronger and stronger and stronger...But with this strenth, came a 'pathological element' -- a growing 'national arrogance' and 'superiority complex', and a 'growing intolerance for other races and cultures that weren't German'... one might say a pathological 'cultural and national identification with Napoleon' and what he had done to Germany...Napoleon pillaged Germany and now Germany would pillage the rest of the world -- through two World Wars -- until it was stopped. Germany even had their Napoleon leader -- Hitler. Germany rallied around Hitler as if he was Napoleon. And for that matter, Hitler 'played' a very good 'Napoleon'. The nationalist 'identification with the aggressor' -- Hitler for Napoleon -- was complete. It only remained for the entire national and international pathology -- World War 1, the holocaust, and World War ll -- to completely play itself out.

Let's advance now to The Korean War. I will confess that at this point in time I know next to nothing about what happened in The Korean War. I am not in any position to pass negative judgment on either Korea and/or America for what happened in The Korean War. I will investigate and come back to you with a little more information on this most important historical subject matter. Obviously, it is crucial that we --meaning all of us, worldwide: American, Canadians, Germans, Koreans, Iranians, Israelians, Afghanastans... -- learn the important lessons from history and some of these most important history lessons are of a most important 'psychological nature' -- played out on the cultural, ethnic, religous, national, and international stage of human behavior...

I just watched on television a most uplifting special on CNN where an American symphony played a very emotional and psychologically important concert in North Korea... This may just be the very tip of the iceberg but this needs to be the direction that both America and North Korea head in, in the name of national and international peace -- integrationism; not 'righteous, either/or, divisionism'. Excuse my preferential American political bias but so far I would have to say -- Obama and Clinton style; not Bush and McCain style.

America -- and particularly the American government -- has to be very careful who and what they label under 'an axis of evil' because it does not take very much historical digging at all to uncover that American soldiers have been in at least two of the countries that were so named (Korea, Iraq) and internationally and historically -- 'what goes around often comes around'...

North Korea needs to 'lay down its national grudge against America' but America has to do its part in 'this dialectical tension between two countries' as well. America needs to understand where the 'North Korean grudge against America' historically came from -- largely it would seem from the Korean War -- and America -- including any President of The United States -- needs to not be righteously judging or pointing a finger at any country as being 'evil' when American troops have been in that country -- invaded that country -- and killed people in that country -- for whatever reason, good and/or bad. That includes at least: Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanastan...and in effect, all of the Middle East, directly and/or indirectly. Arab countries need to let down there historical grudges and hate for Israel -- and visa versa -- but one has to ask: How do you think most Arabs and Arab countries are going to feel about America when America is stacking up Israel with ammunition, weapons -- and I would imagine most definitely 'weapons of mass destruction' (I need to confirm this) -- against these same Arabs and Arab countries. Again, America -- and American politicians -- need to be very careful what countries they label under an 'axis of evil' when there seems to be one common denominator that is attached to the evolution of the so-called evil in all three of these countries -- and that is either invading American troops and/or in the case of Iran a 'political and war-mongering collusion' between America and Israel against Iran and the other Arab countries. This is certainly no justification for Iran to support international terrorism against America, Israel, and/or any other country or persons but once again, we see how American foreign policy has probably played a very big role in the evolution of what Bush called 'the axis of evil'.

Be careful what we label as evil, lest we find out that part of the evil originated in us. Personal growth -- as well as national growth -- arises out of our willingness, either individually and/or collectively -- to take responsibility and accountability for our own righteousness, intolerance, and arrogance, our own superiority complex, our own narcissism, selfishness, and greed, our own form of imperialism and terrorism -- and our own 'axis of evil'. Project evil onto others and most likely the 'evil will boomerang' and come back and 'knock us on our own head'.

Evil is rarely unilateral -- except to the point that some person or country wants to play out his/her/its individual, corporate, group, social, and/or national fascism. Evil always has social roots. It always comes from somewhere. Evil is a 'dialectic power phenomenon' -- an 'identification with the aggressor, the victimizer, the abandoner, the rejector, the betrayer...' 'What goes around comes around' -- although it might reach out into different circles. Evil generally comes back to its nest, back to its source. Destruction and self-destruction are two sides of the same coin. He or she who destructs -- usually, in the end, self-destructs.

Narcissisistically traumatized people generally hate -- they hate their 'perceived victimizer'. Psychotherapy -- on an individual, national, and international level involves the same thing: 'working through' -- and laying down your hate. Life is too short, too valuable, and too precarious to hate. Hate will eat you up inside, eat the life and love right out of you. Let down your hate and your righteous intolerance -- only hold onto that anger which is democratically motivated and directed. Focus your anger in a positive direction -- towards both your own good and to the social good.


3. The Pros and Cons of Nationalism and Culturalism

Be careful of your 'nationalism' -- and where it takes you -- because it can lead you to national arrogance, a national superiority complex, national prejudice, bias, and discrimination against those who do not share your nationality or culture. The world is becoming more and more 'cosmopolitan' and 'multi-culteral' -- and the key word -- the Obama word - is 'non-divisive, integration'.

4. Free Trade vs. Fair Trade

I am starting to understand what the negative repurcussions of 'free trade' are, and alternatively, why 'fair trade' has risen up as its 'anti-thesis'.

McCain supports free trade and says that America does not want to go back to 'protectionist policies' but one has to sit and think for only a few minutes to wonder who exactly it is that McCain might be 'protecting'. Perhaps wealthy corporations, business owners -- and political lobbyists?


Again, I do not profess to be an expert here -- just a layperson trying to understand this whole 'free trade' vs. 'fair trade' controversy.

And here is how I see it right now. As far as so-called 'free trade' goes between America, Canada, and Mexico -- Mexico is at a distinct 'manufacturing' advantage. Canada used to have a distinct 'manufacturing' advantage over the U.S. as well -- until the value of our dollar rose to become basically equal to that of the U.S. dollar. Now Canada does not have a 'manufacturing advantage' over the U.S. But Mexico -- and other countries with 'low worker wages' -- like China and Korea -- still do. Where are the large American -- and global -- manufacturing companies going to manufacture their goods? In the countries with the lowest wages. And no unions. And no benefits. And no holidays. And no sick days.

So bingo. Why are American manufacturing companies leaving America and heading to these other 'low wage' countries. Because they can make their manufactured goods at a cheaper cost. And either sell these products back to America -- and the rest of the world -- at a cheaper price to compete with other global companies from these same countries and/or make bigger profits. This may or may not be good for the American consumer -- depending on the quality of the manufactured goods from these countries and how safe they are, how long they last, etc. The American public is going to like the lower price; just not the lower quality. Think China -- and the all the recalls on certain food brands, children's toys, etc.

However, for the American labor force -- and particularly for the American manufacturing force (as well as now Canadian) -- 'free trade' is an economic disaster. Because where are all the manufacturing companies going to? They are going to the 'poor countries' with the 'lowest wages' and a 'very motivated' workforce of people who want to 'escape poverty' (but who are very likely being exploited in 'sweat shops', and through 'slave labor', at the same time). It doesn't look good on American manufacturing companies if this is what they are doing when they move their companies to these countries. And even if the American manufacturing companies are being 'humane' to these workers in other countries, and paying them the 'going wages' in these countries -- it still comes back to the same basic problem: American manufacturing companies are leaving America to build their companies in poor, low wage countries, and in the process, they are abandoning the American workforce -- and in effect, the American people.

So once again, I ask the prospective President hopeful, Mr. McCain: Who are you protecting, Mr. Mcain if you are not willing to protect the American workforce, the American manufacturing economy, and the general American people? Are you protecting the very wealthy owners of these 'supposedly American companies'? And are these the same very wealthy owners who are supporting your campaign to be elected as the next President of America? How many hundreds of thousands -- or even millions -- of dollars have they added to your campaign coffers so far? Am I getting a very strong whiff of 'political lobbyism' going on here? You take their 'campaign support money' and in turn, you support their rather obvious wish for 'free trade' -- and the right to move their manufacturing companies out of America.

I don't know about you, my dear reader, but if you at least skimmed over my inserts on 'The Boston Tea Party', I do believe I see a very strong similarity between the relationship between the British Government and The East India Tea Company and what smacks to me of the rather 'covert, lobbyist relationship' between McCain and the very wealthy owners of any and all American global manufacturing corporations who might be 'adding very, very substantial financial contributions' to McCain's campaign.

And I don't know about you, my dear reader, but I think the future of American politics rightfully belongs with Obama's style of 'getting many, many more-much, much smaller individual financial contributions from the general, working-class American people' than it does with the 'old-style' American politics (which includes Clinton's style of fund-raising which was basically the same as McCain's).

Obama's strengths and weaknesses as the next prospective President of America have yet to be determined. There can be a world of difference between being a 'good talker' and being a 'good doer'. But for the most part, I think Obama is on the right track.

His campaign fund-raising is definitely on the right track -- both 'ethically sound' and 'extremely effective'.

On the other hand, McCain's campaign fund-raising -- and his 'free trade political stance' -- smells of 'old-style American politics'.

Obama's 'small donations from many, many people' -- has no strings attached to it other than to 'make good on what he has promised to the American people'.

On the other hand, McCain's style of 'campaign fund-raising' -- targeting 'the very, very wealthy owners of very, very large American global manufacturing corporations -- that have bascially abandoned the general American people, is full of 'lobbyist strings attached to it'. We will financially support you very, very well, Mr. McCain, say these very, very wealthy corporate owners -- just as long as you suport 'free trade'.

Kinda reminds me of 'The Boston Tea Party' -- and the relationship between the British government and the East India Tea Company.

Personally, I have much more respect for the will of the American people to represent themselves in government; not to be colluded against by politicians who have 'strings attached to their political positions' as put there by very wealthy corporation owners.

This to me is the future of American politics that Obama talks about -- the elimination of the type of political lobbyism where the American government is basically being 'bought' by very wealthy owners of global American corporations -- at the expense of 'true' American democracy which is the will of the general, American people.

The government is supposed to represent the people; not make slaves of the American people to satisfy the wishes of the wealthiest people in the land.

I have no problem with people being wealthy as long as this wealth has been attained by honest means, and ideally, by helping people; not by exploiting and hurting them.
And ideally, it should at least be partly used to help people; again, not to exploit and hurt them.

And here in lies the problem of 'free trade'.

More and more American manufacturing companies have either basically abandoned America or is in the process of abandoning it. Or they have brought 'a Mexican work force' to live and work in America -- to work at 'Mexican wages' -- illegally. (I can hear Lou Dobbs' voice ringing through my brain. Has he brain-washed me? Or has he taught me good common sense and reason in American politics -- well?)

I think we have tackled a lot of American issues here today. And I am not even an American. But certainly a Canadian who is very much influenced by American politics. I too deserve my say. Democracy, equal rights, freedom of speech, integrationism, multi-culturalism, fairness, honesty, integrity, and good ethics -- if you have none of these -- then 'nationalism' is worth nothing'. Nationalism is only as good as the ethics, the integrity, and the humanism behind the nationalism.

Good night.

dgb, June 29th, 2008.

Pause For Concern: Is Obama's 'Trust Factor' Slipping? (An Article out of Washington)

(An article just taken off the internet that suggests that the 'lustre' is coming off of Obama's 'trust and credibility' factor...)


.................................................................................


Analysis: Obama chose winning over his word By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jun 19, 4:39 PM ET



WASHINGTON - Barack Obama chose winning over his word.

The Democrat once made a conditional agreement to accept taxpayer money from the public financing system, and accompanying spending limits, if his Republican opponent did, too.

No more.

The chance to financially swamp John McCain — and maneuver for an enormous general election advantage — proved too great an allure.

Obama, a record-shattering fundraiser, reversed course Thursday and decided to forgo some $85 million so he could raise unlimited amounts of money and spend as much as he wants.

"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Obama said in announcing that despite his previous commitment, he would rely only on private donations because "the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken."

And with that, the first-term Illinois senator tarnished his carefully honed image as a different kind of politician — one who means what he says and says what he means — while undercutting his call for "a new kind of politics."

McCain, for his part, painted the issue as a character test, saying: "This election is about a lot of things. It's also about trust. It's about keeping your word."

Not that the Arizona senator has much room to talk. He, too, has cast himself as a reformer who tells it like it is but his words and actions sometimes conflict with that identity.

Overall, the race between Obama and McCain amounts to an authenticity contest.

Voters are craving change from typical Washington ways and each candidate is claiming he offers a new brand of politics that transcends poisonous partisanship. Yet, each candidate, in what he says versus what he does, also is undermining his own promises not to become the politics of usual.

McCain, for instance, opposed President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Now, as a White House hopeful in 2008, he supports them; he says doing otherwise would amount to a tax increase. He also long advocated an eventual path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants. Then, while in the GOP primary, he emphasized securing the borders first; he says he listened to the public outcry and a defeated Senate bill.

The Republican also rails against special interests, yet he has faced criticism for having former lobbyists at his campaign's helm. And, just this week, McCain assailed Obama for proposing a windfall profits tax on oil, despite saying last month he would consider the same proposal.

"McCain's a four-star flip-flopper," said Chris Kofinis, a Democratic operative who worked for John Edwards in the primary. "The John McCain of 2000 wouldn't vote for the John McCain of 2008."

True or not, Republicans were quick to pound Obama over his money announcement.

"'Change We Can Believe In' has been thrown overboard for 'Political Expediency I Can Win With,'" said Todd Harris, a Republican analyst and aide to former presidential candidate Fred Thompson in the primary. "Every time Obama's change rhetoric meets his actual change record it evaporates in a cloud of hypocrisy."

Last year, as Obama competed against fundraising behemoth Hillary Rodham Clinton and before his fundraising prowess was evident, Obama proposed that both major party general election nominees agree to stay in the public financing system.

In a November 2007 questionnaire, Obama answered "yes" when asked: "If you are nominated for president in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?" He added: "I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

Then, Obama raised enormous sums — and he started backing away from that position.

McCain, however, had indicated he would go along with the proposal and, since clinching the GOP nomination, has been trying to hold Obama to his commitment. Obama "said he would stick to his word. He didn't," McCain complained Thursday, and then told reporters in Minnesota, "We will take public financing."

Obama made his announcement as McCain was in the Democrat's hometown of Chicago — where McCain had come to raise money.

Obama's decision also came one day before the candidates were required to report their May fundraising totals.

The move could be the death-knell for the post-Watergate federal financing system designed to lessen the large donors' influence and reduce corruption.

It certainly will give Obama an extraordinary advantage over McCain and Republicans who have struggled to match Democratic fundraising this election cycle. Within hours, Obama showed his financial might by rolling out a 60-second television ad in 18 states, including several that have been reliable GOP strongholds.

Obama made the money announcement in a video message to supporters — and sought to empower them to give more.

"You've fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford," Obama said in an appeal seeking donations from $25 to $2,300 and beyond.

"Let's build the first general election campaign that's truly funded by the American people," Obama said — ignoring the fact that the system he's opting out of is paid for by taxpayers who donate $3 to the fund when they file their tax returns.

Obama blamed his decision in part on McCain and "the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups." But he failed to mention that the only outside groups running ads in earnest so far are those aligned with Obama — and running commercials against McCain.

So much for being a straight shooter.

_____

EDITOR'S NOTE — Liz Sidoti covers the presidential campaign and has covered national politics since 2003.

Introduction: American Politics -- The Rise of Obama and 'Change We Can Believe In'

For those of you who have not read any of my work yet, my name is David Bain and I am a Canadian.

So, for those of my readers who may be American, the question might quite legitmately be asked: 'What right does a Canadian have writing about American politics?'

The answer is this: the President that the American people choose in this next election is going to have a huge influence on world politics -- which includes Canadian politics -- in at least the next 4 years or so if not longer. And right now the world is a very unstable place between the war in the Middle East, the rise in the number and the impact-extent of natural disasters, and the instability of the American economy which is influencing Canada, as well as the rest of the world.

I am trying to usher in a partly new, partly old -- but revived -- brand of politics that emphasizes such ideas as: 'checks and balances', 'homeostatic balance', 'Integrative-Multi-Dialectic-Democracy', 'Integrative Humanistic-Exisktentialism', 'Integrative Rational-Empiricism', 'Integrative-Romantic-Enlightenment-Idealism', 'Integrative Constructionist-Deconstructionism' or conversely, 'Integrative Deconstructionist-Constructionism', 'pragmatism and functionality'...and more...

Now there are a lot of fancy, technical terms just mentioned. Most of these are not as forbidding as they may sound for those of you who may not have a philosophical background -- which is where most of them come/came from.

Real-live examples can go a long way towards 'closing the gap' between their 'strangeness' as they may now sound and their 'pragmatic-functionality' once you become more and more familiar of how they are being used.

Right now Obama is my political man. I emphasize -- the words 'Right now'.

In my DGB philosophy -- and this is borrowed from Heraclitus (one of the earliest Greek philosophers), Korzybski and Hayakawa (General Semantics), and Perls (Gestalt Therapy) -- 'Everything is subject to change'.

So far Obama has shown that he is a great orator -- has shown that he can revive and restore lost political hope, faith, and optimism in a Western World -- America, Canada -- that has lost most of its hope, faith, and optimism in its politicians based on false and/or broken promises, false expectations, false assertions, misled values, goals, and dreams...

For most Americans, the Bill Clinton years must seem like a 'lost Utopia' -- a time not long ago when there was a stable, productive American economy with a more valuable dollar, less debt, less terrorism and less war...

Now unfortunately for the Clintons, and Hillary in particular -- perhaps Bill Clinton 'lost some of his old charisma, charm, and composure -- and intruded too harshly into his wife campaign for the Democratic nomination.

I didn't follow everything from the very start, but from what I understand and now perceive, Hillary Clinton started out as the prohibitive favorite, had all the 'big money' donators when she started, perhaps underestimated at least one of her opponents, got off to a slow start herself while Obama wss 'wowing people with his great oratory speeches'...turned to 'old-style politics' and 'throwing every possible criticism at Obama hoping that one might stick'...got a lot of help from the Reverend Wright..and the pastor after that...Obama was accused of being 'elitist' and started to lose the 'lower-middle class working voter' to Clinton...the more that people told Clinton that she should 'give up' the nomination, the harder she worked, and the better she finished...It was like she was a 'baseball team behind 9-5 in the seventh inning and lost 10-9 in the ninth inning'...Towards the 'last innings' it was her husband who became more and more unglued, unravelled, losing his composure, in the face of defeat...I didn't read the newspaper article that set Bill Clinton off, so perhaps I am being unfair here if his tirade against the journalist was justified...

However justified Bill Clinton may or may not have been in calling the journalist 'slimy', the Clintons themselves didn't completely run an ethical campaign... There was some 'good, old-fashioned trash-talking', Hillary Clinton trying to get the Democratic Ethics Committee 'to move the goalposts wider when she found herself down by too many goals late in the nomination match'. She apparently knew -- and agreed -- that the Florida and Michigan State delegates wouldn't count when she started her campaign but made a big issue of this later when she knew that she needed these votes to improve her final count.

Hillary Clinton may have her 'Demcratic' and 'political' strengths -- she may yet do a lot of good for American politics to the extent that she can help with the implementation of universal health care, help lower university tuitions, help increase old age pensions, help the plight of middle class and lower-middle class workers and families in America...but at the same time, there is a lot of 'old-style, down and dirty, behind the scene, Washington politics in Hillary Clinton -- and I do believe that is much of what the American people want to see cleaned up in Washington...That is why they have turned and/are turninng to the 'fresher', less tarnished politics -- 'The Change We Can Believe In' -- of Barack Obama.

What attracts me mainly to Obama is 1. his 'integrationism' as opposed to the 'Either/Or Divisionism' of Republican politicians like Bush and McCain.

Sorry, Mr. McCain but for the first time, you really put your foot in your mouth the other day -- exposing the type of politician you are going to be. There may be many bad things happening politically in China and Russia -- as if there aren't in America -- but the last thing America needs right now is two more new 'cold war enemies'. Didn't you learn anything from Bush's 'axis of evil' speech. 'Good' and 'Bad' Divisionism tends to only exaperate already existing political problems -- if anything, turning the countries you label as 'bad' in an even worse direction -- and speaking unilaterally a la Bush -- without any 'wholistic support from the United Nations as a team'(which America completely alienated itself from when it walked away from the United Nations diplomatic negotiating table...)

War was more important to Bush than peace...or so it would now seem...and now after a decimated economy, McCain wants to 'wag the finger of righteousness and blame' at China and Russia. Look inside, Mr. McCain, look inside first. Address the internal problems of America -- and the estrangment of diplomatic, international public relations -- before you start to add two more countries to America's 'house of blame' and 'list of enemies'. If there is one thing that I think most Americans have learned from this Iraq/Middle East debacle -- it's that 'they can't police the whole world alone and expect to economically, physically, and/or emotionally survive.

America needs a whole host of international allies that it can't keep walking away from when it doesn't like what they say. Nor can it keep attacking 'rogue nations' on the basis of 'unilateralism' without the proper international -- read United Nations -- support.

America, if you are going to preach democracy to the whole wide world, then you better play by democratic rules -- and unilateralism is definitely not democratic -- or be viewed as international, political hypocrites.

If you are going to break the rules of democracy on the basis of 'perceived American narcisssitic wish and/or need' -- then internationally, America is going to be viewed as 'preaching democratic hypocrisy', a 'democratic sham', a 'democratic dog and pony show' being used to attempt to hide -- or not hide -- its underlying narcissism, arrogance, and democratic corruption. That's Bush, less so but partly Clinton, and now McCain -- old style, dirty politics -- moving the goal posts wider in the international community of politics to accomodate narcissistically perceived American need.

Right now, I will stick with Obama's 'integrative and wholistic idealism' -- ideals that are more or less a carbon copy of what I am trying to trumpet here in Hegel's Hotel.

Every man and woman has the right to trumpet his or her own particular brand of idealism -- at least until it is shown that their idealistic talk is a 'sham', a 'dog and pony' show for other more covert and underhanded, sinister, manipulative, narcissistic, hypocritical, corrupt agendas...We haven't gotten there yet with Obama -- so here is for hoping that he continues to sincerely and transparently create -- 'Change That We Can Believe In'.

dgb, June 6th, 2008.