Max Baucus - How out of touch can a politician be?

[shance]

How out of touch can a politician be?

David Sirota


Every now and again you see a story that makes you wonder how politicians can be so out of touch as to quite literally insult their constituents and hard working Americans. One of those days is today, with this national Associated Press story now running everywhere about my U.S. Senator, Max Baucus (D). The headline says it all: "U.S. Senator Supports Outsourcing to India" - and the story is everywhere on the wires. What a pathetic message for a Democratic Party that claims to want to win votes in blue-collar America.


Baucus represents Montana, a state that ranks among the the lowest in income and ranks dead last in wages. And yet somehow, he thinks it's a great idea to take a lavish trip over to India, and give a speech lauding the elimination of good paying jobs in America. Almost like a corporate-programmed automaton, Baucus obediently spews the language of Tom Friedman, saying "The world is flat...Offshoring is a fact of globalization." Seriously folks - how out of touch can a politician get? How out of touch do you have to be to represent a working class state struggling to raise its wages and then go over to India to trumpet the elimination of good paying jobs?


http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=C446D091-9354-31F7-29B108763DD78338

[Skidmore]

1. Six months ago ole Max was raving about China.

I started a thread about it because I found it strange that he would spend so much time talking about China and not about Montana.

[Neecy]

27. check his campaign donors...

I get the feeling that he's getting oodles of money from multinationals who benefit from outsourcing to India and China. You know, companies who do zero business with Montana but need a compliant US senator they can buy on the cheap.

Just a guess.

[BlueManDude]

2. Immigration...

and the associated issues of jobs and security could be such a great issue for Dems (because of Bush's position) but they just can't get their shit together.

[sandnsea]

3. Just pointing out the obvious

Globalization is a fact. We either join laborers abroad in demanding labor, safety and environmental protections, or sink separately. Our Democratic Senators are right to point out the obvious. Most of them have also called for stronger protections that would serve to lift the living standards of those in third world countries as well as equalize the playing field for our businesses here at home. By looking at the problems of globalization and immigraton only through our own self-interested eyes, we will miss the solutions for ourselves and the world at large. I sure wouldn't count on multinational corporations to look out for us or workers in third world countries.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. My working conditions suck. Period. nt.

[sandnsea]

7. Everybody's working conditions suck

Join global organizations who are fighting for labor rights EVERYWHERE.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

8. When a single company has a virtual monopoly on a particular

brand of machine.... you go with the flow.... or you go period. The flow sucks.

[sandnsea]

11. It always has

For most people, work has always been just that, mind numbing, endless drudgery, WORK.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

12. No.... not work.... rather having to do the IMPOSSIBLE for those

who don't know that what they are demanding is IMPOSSIBLE in a certain time allotment. When they won't invest in the equipment required to at least accomplish the job. When they DEMAND two days worth of work in ONE. When they are going to call and bitch that the job was substandard because THEY FORCED IT TO BE THAT WAY.

[sandnsea]

20. I know

Anybody who lived through the 70's knows. Do you think your fellow workers in third world countries have it any different??? Global labor rights. If the companies can't run from area to area in order to sabatoge the worker, they will have to change.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

23. Gotcha.... global worker's rights, a concept whose time has come. nt.

[Skidmore]

5. I never get where you come from. It is the rise of multinational

corporations which led to globalization. It is a process by which the worker is intended to be screwed over and over again, no matter what their national allegience. The role of the Dems should be to serve as a voice for the worker, and make labor strong again, not to make certain that the corporate executives can pad their compensation packages. Pointing out the obvious is one thing, but when they participate on the side of management over and over again, then we are in trouble.

[sandnsea]

6. Nothing is changing

Sooner or later I would think people who have tried the same tactics over and over and over without success would wake up and realize their way isn't working. Some have, I've seen some of the poverty groups beginning to talk more about the kinds of trade we need instead of simply attacking "outsourcing". It is beyond me that I can specifically state LABOR, HUMAN RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, and have it fly right over the heads of those that can only see anti-corporate. I HATE corporatization, absolutely HATE it. But I want improvement for workers MORE than I hate the corporations. We have to refocus on global human and labor rights, including our own, and drop the attack on outsourcing and immigration because it ISN'T WORKING.

[The2ndWheel]

9. Globalization has been happening

since humans started to walk out of Africa. It's called civilization. What was the expansion of the Roman, British, American, Russian, German, and any other empire? It's all part of globalization. It's a power base that must grow. Think of it as a flower. It starts out very small, grows, matures, then dies. That's what will happen here, as every other civilization that has come and gone.

[shance]

26. Seems to me the "that's the way its always been" phrase

is a convenient excuse we tell ourselves so we can continue to be lazy and not use our brains and our God given capabilities.

I believe it is also an excuse to allow continued abuse, enslavement and neglect for those who are not 'financially' wealthy, who are born into poverty, and/or those who live life differently and/or don't fit into the corporate "system". The truth is, our history has been so distorted through the years and re-written, we have no idea if what we have now is the way its always been.

I believe we will either step out of our comfort zone, take responsibility for what is happening to our world, and seek solutions that benefit everyone, or we will continue to destroy the planet and everything on it, by exhausting all its natural resources and milking mother earth like an overworked cow until she finally collapses.

When we were young, most of us were taught the importance of being fair and learning to share. We have allowed many in leadership, because of our own overworked schedules, overwhelm and outright denial, to disregard and dismiss those values of fairness and "equity" for all.

If we allow a few to keep everyone else stuck in oppression and fear because of their own greed and inability to tolerate necessary change, everyone loses, including them. The few is getting smaller and the mass is getting larger. That benefits no one in the long run because everyone lives in fear of loss and desperation.

[Douglas Carpenter]

10. yes, I don't think "protectionism" is actually the main issue

this was a good article I found on Zmag --link:

http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=9310§ionID=13

snip: "If the central question we're asking is: "free trade or protectionism?" the debate is already lost. That's how the corporate globalizers have presented it, that's how the media -- which clearly has a horse in the race -- report it and that's why they've kept the upper hand."

snip:"The anti-corporatization movement seems fractured for good reason: trade deals like those being negotiated in Hong Kong touch on dozens of areas of public policy. They impact (or in some cases will impact, if the "free-traders" get their way) a range of public services, environmental regulations, tax laws, food safety issues, and the price of AIDS medicine in poor countries. And trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA give multinationals the right to sue governments -- including local governments -- for enacting policies that hurt their bottom lines. In short, these deals should offend the sensibilities of all "small d" democrats."

snip: "A trade debate based on the terms of self-governance and national self-determination belong at the center of any prominent discussion of trade. Opposing the world's trading systems on these terms makes you a "small d" democrat, not a protectionist."

[cornermouse]

14. So all those stories about the American spirit, inventiveness,

and fighting spirit and about what can happen if we keep trying doesn't apply in this case? We just lay down and give up?

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. it is not about laying down and giving up

It's recognizing that the using the phrase "protectionism" vs"free trade" is a loser and puts many people even myself in a bit of a moral bind.

"Free trade" vs "protectionism' implies that the much-much poorer people of the third world will be much better off and that we of the first world have a moral obligation to make some modest sacrifices. Even I could be swayed by such an argument if it were true.

However what is called "free trade" is rejected for a reason by vast portions of the ordinary people of the third world. The U.S. and western powers are only able to get these treaties through by shoving it down their throats.

The simple reality is that neoliberal economics actually increases the vast disparity of wealth in the third world and everywhere else for that matter. Such treaties actually suspend the ability of peoples in both the developing world and the industrial world to have any reasonable democratic input into the economic matters of their own country. The workers in a garment factory in the Philippines don't just make half or one fourth the American salary, they make between one and two dollars a day with no affective rights whatsoever and still live well below subsistence poverty level. In China and many other places they earn much less than that and have even fewer rights and worse conditions.
The central issue in my opinion of the whole question of what is called "globalization" is the question of whether or not people can have a democratic say in how their own countries economies are run and whether or not working people whether in the first or third world have any say whatsoever over their situation. What is called "globalization" as it is now practiced removes economy--the most powerful aspect of peoples lives--from the realm of democracy.

[sandnsea]

15. Good article

Obviously alot of issues in the trade debate, including things like fuel pollutants. "Venezuela, backed by Brazil, successfully challenged provisions of the United States' Clean Air Act that kept fuels with higher levels of pollutants out of the market." We are always quick to target the US, it appears problems created by other countries are slipping under the radar. Of course, as soon as it was beneficial to the US, after Katrina, we dropped those pollutant levels in a hurry. There's pros and cons to the self-governance argument because some countries implementing high standards will be hurt by others that implement lower standards. I think equitable economies are a better argument, for every community, whether small village or large city. Regardless, I do agree that the argument should not be strictly anti-globalization with the choice watered down to free trade or protectionism.

[Douglas Carpenter]

29. there could not be worse framing than those words

"free trade" vs. "protectionism"

It implies that one side is for freedom and the other side is being selfish.

[Armstead]

13. Self delete -- duplicate

[sandnsea]

17. You're living in the problem

I would like to live in the solution. Labor rights. Human rights. Environmental Protection.

[Armstead]

19. That's a meaningless non-sequiter

Again you are only looking at half the picture.

You can't take a shit sandwich, put ketchup on it and still call it anything but a shit sandwich.

[sandnsea]

22. No, it isn't

How do you figure bitching is a solution???

[Armstead]

24. Because bitching is also called constructive criticism

Heck, why should we all bother to bitch about Bush?

Ignoring the core fallacy and misrepresentation at the heart of so-called "free trade" and Corporate Globalization only perpetuates the lie.

Pointing it out -- bitching -- is the only way to correct and counter the Big Lie.

[sandnsea]

25. People want solutions

People have been bitching about the power of corporations since I was just a child and the only telephone company was Bell. I still don't know that breaking up Bell really helped the consumer. I do know that it hurt the worker because they're the only ones who seem to be competing, for crumbs instead of good union contracts. You don't need to point out the problems of corporations to any American. The ones who believe in them are the ones who have always believed in them and always will. The only way the worker has ever gotten a fair shake is to organize and demand it. That's the only way the worker is going to get a fair shake now, global labor rights. You start making the soccer/security mom feel responsible for that chinese woman who has to wear a diaper in order to make their kid's tickle-me elmo, you'll get change.

[Armstead]

16. I agree with HALF of what you say

What you said is fine, as far as it goes.

But you are missing the other half of the problem.

International trade is good and necessary. But that is far different than Corporate Globalization, which screws both the majority of the population in the US and developed world while screwing the poorer developing world simultaneously.

Globalization in the neo-liberal terms is has been pushed is nothing more than a modern form of colonialism. The only path for poorer nations is to become colonies and sweatshops for corporations, and produce goods for export, according to this SCAM.

In reality it undermines the ability of poor nations to actually develop well-rounded and self-sufficient economies in which international trade is balanced with domestic production and consumption.

That creates the race to the bottom. Poor nations are exploited and stay poor -- they just get slighlty less poor. Developed nations meanwhile get shoved down closer to the levels of poor nations as jobs are outsourced and replaced with low wage replacements. The middle class goes down, the upper elite minority gets richer, and we end up with a Third World economy too.

It is possible to advocate for better workers rights, etc. WITHOUT buying into the outrageous CON JOB that is being pushed by the GOP and by stooge Democrats like Baucus. Ignoring that larger context makes any movements to raise standards just empty feelgood nonsense.

[sandnsea]

18. well dang

I answered to your deleted post. hehe!!

[Armstead]

21. Yes I got confused by all the branchjes and sub branches of the thread

Sorry about that

[wildwww2]

30. Answer: Look at how out of touch the politicians leader is.

Then you will see how out of touch they are. Bu$h is such a lying sociopath that it isn`t even funny. Any person so out of their mind to follow that murderer is probably psycho themselves. Max Bacus is a prime example. But boy are his lobbyist friends getting rich off of this war crime his pal Bu$h has started based on a bunch of lies.

[mitchum]

31. Baucu$ has been touched lovingly

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$