The big run has begun again in earnest. Ready or not, we are tossed into the political stampede. For many months we will hear about the Americans who’re horning in on the job of herd negotiator. Campaigners will smoke our homes with urgent signals, reaching out to primary tribes, drumming up deals.
What shared interest compels this grand public ritual? What good are we exchanging here?
Trade is an old reason to gather round the human table. Two big deals now focus our attention. One proposes to relax trade sanctions on Iran in exchange for a halt to nuclear armament. The other seeks to liberalize trade among Pacific-rim nations in exchange for, well, we haven’t been told yet.
President Obama oversees both these negotiations. If our alpha incumbent plays his cards as a smart public servant, he could raise the moral bar for world leadership. If not, I suspect he will still do quite well for himself, even if the future doesn’t look very safe, healthy, or green for the rest of us.
Most political news exasperates or bores me, but occasionally something sounds hopeful. I felt a pulse of optimism two years ago when I heard that Obama participated in a phone conversation with Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s newly elected president. It was the first chat between our heads of state in many years. Reports say their talk showed a “basis for resolution” of the dispute over Tehran’s nuclear program. I like to imagine it was a bit more colorful.
“We can re-open trade,” says Obama, “but only if you forego the path of mass destruction. Remember: Alladin becomes Abaddon when he rubs the nuclear lamp and wishes for weapons. Prove you won’t pursue that genie of doom. Then we can do business.”
“No problem,” says Rouhani. “Muslims are not men who flirt with jinn. Tradition tells us those creatures can be trouble, even ones who look like bombshell blonds in Hollywood harem pants. Trust us not to follow the same warhead devil that has seduced Christians and Jews.”
No doubt some Persian leaders reject the idea of trust between our countries as fast and furiously as do western hardliners. Some members of Congress are on record trying to scuttle the deal with Iran before it was even drafted. Politicos of this stripe hail from every quarter. Perhaps at certain times they all meet at some hidden location, like the missile-guided brethren beneath the planet of the apes.
Those hard-core hawks have also sunk their talons into more tender meat. Some liberal lawmakers have voiced their opposition to the deal with Iran. Personally, I don’t fault any representative who has carefully considered this deal and believes it doesn’t go far enough to protect public interests. What I cannot respect are politicians who oppose this deal yet refuse to hold other economic agreements to high standards. The lack of consistency smacks of private agenda.
Washington has helped to install a global trade system that surrenders our sovereignty while undercutting laws that govern human rights, consumer safety, and environmental protection. Our leaders claim to draw a line when it comes to nuclear weapons. Yet even on that front they make glaring exceptions — notably Israel, which developed nuclear bombs in secret, obfuscated international inspectors, refuses to provide information about its arsenal, and has never signed the treaty on non-proliferation.
Whatever differences exist between liberals and conservatives have not been sufficient to change America’s all-or-nothing approach to trade. We either embrace a low common denominator in which economic relations are divorced from our values, or we shut the doors entirely through embargoes. Deals cut by our government seldom calibrate trade to support our collective needs. Packaged in the common good, in real terms they cater to corporate patrons and buddy regimes. Indeed, Congress has prohibited negotiators from addressing climate change as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Our ability to combat slavery has also been weakened, apparently with the blessing of the Obama administration.
For many Americans the greatest failure of trust involves our own leaders. It has become increasingly hard to believe presidential promises that are made during long campaign seasons. Each candidate claims to be an impeccable deal-maker. Yet again and again we see that claim proven false after they are elected.
America needs to treat others in an even-handed way that marries trade with conscience. We need leaders who deal fairly so that economic policy advances our civic values. Only then can goodwill be sustained. Only then can we all live long and prosper.
Masterfully written Watt, and spot on, i couldn’t agree more. Much like what Bob stated in his commentary on Mikes piece, “Summer Sewage” i believe much of the onus lands on us, All of US, to make good, fair and sustainable trades where ever we be. I think it was de Tocqueville who said, ” In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.” While i’m not quite sure democracy is what we have anymore, i do believe that our actions have consequence. And when those actions tally up in the billions, it’s hard not to notice. As we as a populace steer away from the notions of,” what can i get, or take,” and embrace “what can i give, what can i offer, how can this sustain us all,” governments change. (I mean they’re just people right?) I am with you man, 100%. Lets all of us mirror the change we want to see and make good trades, good friends, and good neighbors.
Thank you Vinny. I really appreciate your words of hope.
For humanity to survive, our economy needs to shift from depletion to sustenance. It’s easier for me to envision that shift at the local level — through direct trade at farmers markets, for example. But I know change needs to happen in the global marketplace, too.
Most governments claim to represent people. To the degree that democracy is nurtured, this claim is true. Yet problems can also arise when we equate nations with personhood. Something greater defines us as human beings, something that can be easily lost in the flurry of nationalist fervor. It’s good to keep that in mind, even as we participate in government to uphold the common good.
It’s kind of sad to see some prominent members of my tribe saying they will vote against the Iran deal, supposedly because it doesn’t work in Israel’s favor. Some of these same folks have voted to give Obama fast-track authorization in other international deals that have minimal benefits for us regular Americans, and no benefit to Israel I know of.
Maybe I’m missing something in the Iran deal, but to me, it’s about as simple as you imagine, Watt. It’s two leaders getting together and working it out so that their countries can move on. It’s trust but verify. It’s a way to get some goods and people flowing between nations again. It’s a cautious return to normalcy, a little like our opening to Cuba. And it’s about time.
The litmus test of support for Israel may have made sense 60 years ago, but not today. Myself and many others of the 12 tribes are sick and tired of blanket support for Israel. How many other nations are considered this highly when international deals are negotiated? We have many agreements with countries we are more or less enemies of. In a world with nuclear weapons and such horrible misunderstandings, it is necessary. I find it incredible that so many regular folks would like to scuttle the Iran deal. How will going back to what we are currently doing benefit anyone but the weapons guys?
I’m personally against free trade between countries. I think tariffs are a good thing, keeping trade on a more local basis. And putting transnational corporations into the mix muddles it to the point of absurdity. I like your picture of negotiators sitting around the table and ironing out morally defensible treaties that help their people, but also help other nations as well. Hell, I’ll volunteer to be on the team! We Jews are well known for our arguing and yapping tendencies, and insert good food into the mix, and you have a recipe for great agreements (amidst disagreement).
If he were still alive, in fact, I think we could do a lot worse than Leonard Nimoy as chief negotiator. He’d be a constant reminder of the Star Trek premise that mankind somehow overcame their differences and were able to send spaceships out to space with representatives from most major countries. And a reminder that a warlike race could turn to logic and save their own planet. Live long and prosper, Brother Watt, the Upper Left Edge, and all of us!
Peace and prosperity be upon you, Brother Bob.
We humans are fiercely social critters, eager to belong. Sure, loners walk among us. But most of us cleave to some tribal identity based on religion, ethnicity, race, region, generation, brand, sexual orientation, gender, profession…it could be anything. Heck, I’ve watched tribal bonding occur over astrological signs.
Such fellowship can be beautiful, educational, ecstatic, and fun. Expressions of tribe can result in cultural traditions that help people live in harmony with each other and the land. Yet tribalism can also turn sour when status-hungry members seek to use it for personal gain. I’ve witnessed this happen with my native clan of White-Christian-Straight-Male-Southerners. Some loudmouth cousins apparently mistake tribal membership for cultural supremacy. They seem to think we don’t need to abide by the same rules of engagement we expect of other people. The caramel-corn word for this mindset is “exceptionalism.”
The WCSMS tribe has bonded quite forcefully with some outspoken Jews in defense of Israel. I suspect this political bond persuaded President Lyndon Johnson to sell fighter jets to Israel without requiring that Israel sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (as Johnson had initially proposed). Such hawkish exceptionalism seems to drive much of the positioning coming from leaders like Lieberman, Cruz, Cheney, and Netanyahu.
I yearn for a deeper fellowship that counterbalances that militarist bond. Brothers like you have helped point me in a good direction. The original Star Trek is an excellent metaphor for that cross-cultural connection. Both Captain Kirk and Spock were played by Jews. Gene Roddenberry, the show’s founding writer, was raised a Southern Baptist. The underlying themes of the show celebrated peace, justice, exploration, and inclusiveness. The United Federation of Planets was not an empire.
We’re talking about a very old contrast between two overarching worldviews that are expressed within most tribes. I found a wonderful little parable that illustrates this contrast between two rabbis.
“Once there was a gentile who came before Shammai, and said to him: ‘Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot.’ Shammai pushed him aside with the measuring stick he was holding. The same fellow came before Hillel, and Hillel converted him, saying: ‘That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it.'” – Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a”
And another thing, Bob. I agree that tariffs can be useful, if and when they are calibrated to protect or achieve a public good. For example, a science-minded friend tells me that the U.S. now has data to link pollutants in the Northwest to industrial production in Asia. It would be perfectly fair, and good trade policy, to apply a tariff to all Asian goods that contribute to this pollution. After all, someone will need to pay to deal with the consequences. And those costs should not be shouldered by the American public.