Watching the Democratic Party Iowa debates, the one thing that surprised me was that every candidate agreed that, as far as trade policy goes, the "neocons" are correct. Every single one of the candidates seemed to agree that trade agreements should be tied to human rights issues, as they were during the Reagan Administration. This is how regime change can best be accomplished, as it was the way the old USSR regime fell. Natan Sharanski's book, The Case For Democracy, has been read by George W. Busch, Condileeza Rice, and about everybody on their staffs and is acknowledged to be the "handbook" for foreign economic policy.
Apparently the Democratic Party candidates have read it as well, for some of them quoted directly from the book. Or perhaps quoted somebody they heard quoting from the book. Somebody like, perhaps, Dick Cheney?
They tried to make this sound like a different tack than that being taken by the State Department, but those who have been paying attention to the news know that, for one thing, there are presently ongoing negotiations that are precisely about human rights issues, with China and Pakistan in particular.
Perhaps they hope that we don't pay attention, or, just as likely, they just haven't been paying attention.
Theoretically, they have the foreign economics policy right, but listening to there proposals for the domestic policy, they all want to make the American citizenry more dependent on the government for their jobs and food. You can't have things both ways and say you are for freedom. But, that's politicians for you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hey RevJim! Thanks for stopping by my blog PoorGrrl Zone and leaving a comment. Glad you like my little contribution to the blogoshpere and thanks for adding me to your blogroll. I've added both of your blogs to mine, too. And thanks, too, for the info on Ron Paul. I'm glad all Libertarians don't share his views on the war. And please pass on the message-to-the-troops link to everyone you can!
Actually, it was when we stopped connecting human rights to trade deals that human rights improved in countries. Certainly China is not anywhere near what we would like, but it is a better place since we began trading with them and they became a freer economy. In places where we have refused to trade because of human rights abuses, nothing has happened to improve human rights. In fact, things have typically gotten worse. It is freedom which fosters freedom, not the threat to withhold freedom.
Actually, it was when we stopped connecting human rights to trade deals that human rights improved in countries. Certainly China is not anywhere near what we would like, but it is a better place since we began trading with them and they became a freer economy. In places where we have refused to trade because of human rights abuses, nothing has happened to improve human rights. In fact, things have typically gotten worse. It is freedom which fosters freedom, not the threat to withhold freedom.
Post a Comment