4 ms·

Hmmm ... interesting points. On one hand, conservatives in the US have rejected multilateralism. For example, the latter Bush administration openly denigrated

Hmmm ... interesting points. On one hand, conservatives in the US have rejected multilateralism. For example, the latter Bush administration openly denigrated and ignored the UN and our European allies. Conservatives criticize even attempting to follow international law or legitimizing US military action through multilateral support, calling it weakness. They say they don't want to be tied down and see the US going it alone. Also, they tend to be more isolationist. Fringe conservatives (a small group) talk about UN black helicopters and world government conspiracies. On the other, you bring up some good points: > Consider which group is constantly demonized for globalization, and which group riots at WTO conferences Just some ideas: * Perhaps globalisation isn't international cooperation as much as international action - it's seen as the US imposing itself on other nations. The economic equivalent of military action. * Maybe the WTO is an exception to that, or maybe it's the US creating a legal and bureaucratic tool to further it's power. * You're mostly talking about the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. They are substantial, but the moderate wing rules and the progressives also criticize Bill Clinton and Obama for globalization. > Democrats, for the last 100 years, have been protectionists. This I strongly disagree with. Clinton brought NAFTA to the US, Obama is trying to implement the TPP. That's more than any GOP administration since ... I don't know when. There are protectionist elements in both parties, including unions and progressives among the Dems and businesses in the GOP; I don't think it favors one or the other (but that's just my impression). > This is the first time I've heard this charge. I assure you it is nothing new. I will point out that you are talking about economic issues, which is perfectly valid; I was thinking of political issues such as immigration, conflict, etc.

woodman 11y ago
> Perhaps globalisation isn't international cooperation as much as international action I'm not sure what kind of cooperation has a more positive impact than economic. It brings peace and prosperity. > Clinton brought NAFTA to the US, Obama is trying to implement the TPP. NAFTA was Bush Sr. The GOP has a lot of reasons to resist the TPP, but the main beef seems to be the executive branch's attempt at role reversal in the crafting of legislation. > I will point out that you are talking about economic issues... All politics are local, and nothing weighs move heavily on the minds of voters than an empty stomach.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > NAFTA was Bush Sr. NAFTA was negotiated under George H. W. Bush, but passed (by Congress) during (and with the support of and active lobby by) the Clinton administration. > The GOP has a lot of reasons to resist the TPP, but the main beef seems to be the executive branch's attempt at role reversal in the crafting of legislation. The GOP (including as recently as this year) has supported what you characterize as this "role reversal", through legislation on fast track negotiating authority and trade promotion authority.
- hackuser 11y ago
  >> Perhaps globalisation isn't international cooperation as much as international action > I'm not sure what kind of cooperation has a more positive impact than economic. It brings peace and prosperity. I agree that economic cooperation brings peace and prosperity (speaking very generally). My point is that many see globalization not as cooperation but as an economic assault. There's a long history of it: Back in the 19th century at least, trade "agreements" with weaker countries were often signed under threat of military action. In the early 20th century, the US military protected US corporate investments in the Americas. The U.S. overthrew Iran's government in the 1950s when they threatened to take control of their own oil industry. Many trade deals long have been considered to be one-sided, benefitting only a few narrow interests in the U.S. I'm not advocating that side, only making the case that they have a strong reason to doubt that globalization is cooperative.

woodman 11y ago

> Perhaps globalisation isn't international cooperation as much as international action I'm not sure what kind of cooperation has a more positive impact than economic. It brings peace and prosperity. > Clinton brought NAFTA to the US, Obama is trying to implement the TPP. NAFTA was Bush Sr. The GOP has a lot of reasons to resist the TPP, but the main beef seems to be the executive branch's attempt at role reversal in the crafting of legislation. > I will point out that you are talking about economic issues... All politics are local, and nothing weighs move heavily on the minds of voters than an empty stomach.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> NAFTA was Bush Sr. NAFTA was negotiated under George H. W. Bush, but passed (by Congress) during (and with the support of and active lobby by) the Clinton administration. > The GOP has a lot of reasons to resist the TPP, but the main beef seems to be the executive branch's attempt at role reversal in the crafting of legislation. The GOP (including as recently as this year) has supported what you characterize as this "role reversal", through legislation on fast track negotiating authority and trade promotion authority.
hackuser 11y ago
>> Perhaps globalisation isn't international cooperation as much as international action > I'm not sure what kind of cooperation has a more positive impact than economic. It brings peace and prosperity. I agree that economic cooperation brings peace and prosperity (speaking very generally). My point is that many see globalization not as cooperation but as an economic assault. There's a long history of it: Back in the 19th century at least, trade "agreements" with weaker countries were often signed under threat of military action. In the early 20th century, the US military protected US corporate investments in the Americas. The U.S. overthrew Iran's government in the 1950s when they threatened to take control of their own oil industry. Many trade deals long have been considered to be one-sided, benefitting only a few narrow interests in the U.S. I'm not advocating that side, only making the case that they have a strong reason to doubt that globalization is cooperative.