Pelosi Goes with the Money

Share this post...

Submit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn
Pelosi Serves Big Money Over Workers -- and Democrats
by William Greider
In terms of economic consequences, the new trade agreement with Peru is trivial. In political terms, however, it delivers an ominous message. 
When faced with a choice between money and their own rank-and-file, the Democratic leaders in the House will go with the money, even if it requires them to pass legislation with Republican votes.
Even if a majority of their own caucus is opposed. Even if it means handing the shrinking president, George W. Bush, a rare legislative victory.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi pulled it off last week at considerable cost to her own reputation. How different are the new Democrats in Congress? Not very, it seems.
[Republished at PFP with Agence Global permission.]
Nancy Pelosi has the Democrats choosing to stand up for big-money interests on global trade rather than for the American worker.
That is a reasonable interpretation of events and the Speaker is now stuck with the burden of disproving it.

Pelosi's lieutenants "whipped" the party caucus energetically and did better than expected -- 109 Democrats voting for the Peru trade bill, 116 Democrats voting against.

But Pelosi still winds up looking like the great triangulator, Bill Clinton, who managed to pass important trade measures like NAFTA only by relying on Republican votes over his own party. Pelosi will come to regret the comparison, I suspect, because it suggests she is unreliable as a party leader, at least if you thought Democrats were going to change things. On the Peru vote, she played the big-money contributors and the opposition party against her own troops. Clinton used to do this brilliantly with lots of soulful rhetoric extolling his own courage. Pelosi and team are not so adept.

Why would she depart from her usual form? After all, Pelosi normally won't bring an issue to the House floor unless assured of overwhelming consensus among her members.

Her explanation: "I don't want this party to be viewed as an anti-trade party." That is the same simple-minded non sequitur the multinational establishment always invoke to scold Democrats. None of the Democratic dissenters are arguing for "no trade." They are trying to change the rules of trade so US workers are not the first victims of new agreements. Pelosi argued that the Peru agreement includes an important reform -- stronger language in support of labor and environmental standards -- and it does.

But is there perhaps another reason why she pushed so hard against her own caucus?

Steven R. Weisman of the New York Times gently suggested one. "Democrats from the prosperous areas of the East and West Coast have become especially responsive, many Democrats say, to the desire of Wall Street and the high technology, health, pharmaceutical, and entertainment industries to expand their sales overseas," Weisman wrote. "These industries have also become major Democratic contributors."

She did it for the money.

That is a more plausible explanation than insider arguments over the fine print in an inconsequential new trade bill. The big-money sectors are anxious to squelch the new critics of globalization in Democratic ranks before they can gain momentum in Congress. Looking toward financing the 2008 elections, Pelosi chose to stand with the money guys and dismiss the political backlash against globalization building across the country. She is probably betting people aren't paying attention to such trivial matters.

But I wouldn't count on that. She is liable to lose her bet as economic conditions worsen for folks in coming months. People are likely to get more anxious and angry than they already are. And one thing Democrats should not try to tell voters in 2008 is that they are the party of change. That might yield more yawns and snickers than votes.

William Greider, The Nation's National affairs correspondent, has been a political journalist for more than thirty-five years. A former Rolling Stone and Washington Post editor, he is the author of the national bestsellers One World, Ready or Not, Secrets of the Temple and Who Will Tell The People and, most recently, The Soul of Capitalism (Simon & Schuster).

Copyright ©2007 The Nation

Released: 12 November 2007
Word Count: 583
for rights and permissions, contact:

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., 1.336.686.9002 or 1.212.731.0757

Agence Global   
1.212.731.0757 (main)
1.336.286.6606 (billing)
1.336.686.9002 (rights & permissions)

Agence Global is the exclusive syndication agency for The Nation, Le Monde diplomatique, as well as expert commentary by Richard Bulliet, Mark Hertsgaard, Rami G. Khouri, Peter Kwong,Tom Porteous, Patrick Seale and Immanuel Wallerstein.
Released: 12 November 2007
Word Count: 583
Rights & Permissions Contact: Agence Global, 1.336.686.9002, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  

Share this post...

Submit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn