قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / World / Elizabeth Warren wants to outpace Trump in the trade

Elizabeth Warren wants to outpace Trump in the trade



Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is unwilling to cede trade policy issues to President Donald Trump.

In a speech delivered on Thursday afternoon at the American University in Washington, DC, Warren launches a biting critique of a generation neo-liberal consensus on trade policy in Washington and – conspicuously – insists that despite Trump's protectionist rhetoric and Aspects of protectionist politics has not gone far enough.

Trump's leaning towards open trade and the generous embrace of protectionist rhetoric and politics has led to widespread speculation that the parties may realign trade. The Democrats became a free trade party and Republicans became protectionists.

In fact, at one point, the parties were so aligned that a Trump-induced flip-flop after the Reagan-to-Obama era would have readjusted things. Warren does not have it though.

In a draft speech addressing a number of foreign policy and national security issues, Warren says, "Washington's emphasis from the 1

980s shifted from a policy that benefits everyone to a policy that is one The handful of elites benefit here at home and around the world, "with international economic policy being very important in this change. She argues that Trump was much more a continuation of this bipartisan consensus than a break with him.

The Warren Doctrine on Trade: America First

Of course, left-wing criticism of US trade policy is nothing new, and its content has always been somewhat different from Trump's criticism.

One interesting aspect of Warren's approach to trade is that it breaks with the Left on a crucial point, saying, "Trade globalization has opened up opportunities and brought billions out of poverty around the world."

That's the kind of thing you normally hear about the centralist defenders of the trade consensus (here's Vox's own Zack Beauchamp), but Warren does not call the role of globalization to fight global poverty to honor globalization. Instead, it describes a scenario in which Western elites have joined forces with the poor of the world to penetrate the American middle class:

We can begin our defense of democracy by recording what has gone wrong with our international economic policies.

Globalization Trade has opened up opportunities and brought billions out of poverty around the world. Huge companies have made money with their fists. But our trade and economic policies have not brought the same benefits to the American middle class. In fact, US trade policy has given one blow to another to the workers and unions fighting for them.

For decades, the leaders of both parties had proclaimed the gospel that free trade was a rising tide of all boats. Great rhetoric – aside from the fact that the trade deals they negotiated were mainly lifting yachts – and throwing millions of working Americans overboard to drown.

This is about the story told by economist Branko Milanovic ("A Portrait of the World Economy") "elephant graph" is not universally recognized), which means a significant increase in wealth for the global elite, while significantly reducing global poverty, but a stagnation of incomes for middle-class citizens in industrialized countries.

Left critics of globalization generally deny that there is a compromise, and instead present what economist Jeff Faux calls a "global class war" in which the poor and middle class around the world are losers. Warren – more like Trump – welcomes the compromise and simply says that politicians should prefer Americans' interests to foreigners. She denies, however, that Trump actually did.

Warren Trumps to Outwit Trump

"The president is making headlines against GM's plans to stop thousands of American jobs in Ohio and Michigan," Warren says in a rather obvious attack on Trump, "but his actual policies are hindering them Others are not persuaded to continue burdening American companies with corporate profits. "

However, Warren argues even more clearly that Trump's renegotiation of NAFTA signals is a sell-out of NAFTA critics.

" There is no question that we are NAFTA "Before she revisits some of the standard anti-NAFTA topics that trade skeptics have been dealing with for years," she says, "but as it is currently being written, Trump's deal will be the severe and prolonged damage that NAFTA For American workers, do not stop – the outsourcing will not stop, it will not raise wages and it will no jobs were created. It is NAFTA 2.0. "

Warren says the harsher labor standards of the new deal are toothless, that environmental standards are lacking, and it's" replete with handouts "that large pharmaceutical companies can use to absorb the high prices they charge for many medicines.

Consequently, she vows against the deal in the Senate. It tries to create a potential contrast not only to Trump, but also to other Democratic Party senators who truly support American workers who are victims of foreign trade.

An argument affecting the year 2020 and beyond

Trade policy is an area in which the topic is Warren has been intensely involved in the past.

However, the speech also deals with nuclear weapons, the war in Afghanistan, defense contracts, the military budget and a number of other topics of American foreign policy. In part, this simply reflects the fact that Warren is now on the Army Committee of the Senate. However, this also reflects the fact that former Democratic Senate Chairman Harry Reid has been given a seat on the Armed Services Committee and told her to apply for Trump in the final months of her post after Trump took office after Trump won in 2016.

In other words, it's about establishing Warren's Chops as a potential commander-in-chief.

This means that the trade policy material can also be seen in a 2020 context.

Warren throws down the glove that for her an anti-Trump attitude should not be a tricky embrace of anything Trump criticizes. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did not rule as part of the cross-party consensus on trade policy, most Congressional Democrats – and of course Warren himself.

Trump's rise seemed in many ways to be a more convincing democratic shift in favor of the Clinton / Obama position.

Warren has put a solid flag in the other camp, arguing that the right way to fight Trump in trade is to throw him as a faker. At the same time, she dares to challenge other more Democrats who might be against her, "If Trump is bad, globalization must be good."


Source link