President Obama Signs Three New Free Trade Agreements

Although President Obama campaigned heavily against free-trade agreements like NAFTA, he just signed three more into law. The agreements cover US trade relations with Columbia, Panama and South Korea.

During the 2008 Democratic Primaries, free trade became a major campaign issue. Hillary Clinton and Obama exchanged very tough words over the subject as the primaries reached the Midwest. Although Obama faulted Clinton for participating in the process to enact NAFTA, leaked communications between his economic team and members of the Canadian government revealed that Obama privately assured Canada that his tough talk on trade was merely campaign rhetoric.

Although Obama initially denied any allegations of double-talk, he later conceded that language in political debates can become "overheated." Several articles on Dissenting Justice cover this issue (see below).

For more coverage, see:

What Happened to the Thunderous Liberal Opposition to Free Trade?


Don't Blame the Current Economic Conditions: Obama's Softer Position on NAFTA Emerged Almost a Year Ago


Chill Out, Canada: Despite Tough Campaign Rhetoric Obama Will Not Touch NAFTA

Washington Post Asks: "Is Occupy Wall Street Overblown?" UPDATE

Media coverage of the Occupy Wall Street movement has increased sluggishly. Undoubtedly, the lack of media attention has deprived the public of meaningful information about the movement and the means to scrutinize its activities.

For these reasons, I was surprised to read Washington Post columnist Chris Cillizza's article which asks: "Is Occupy Wall Street Overblown?"  Cillizza implies that the movement is probably overly hyped. He reaches this unstated conclusion after analyzing a recent Pew study which shows that only a small percentage of the public is following the protests "very closely":

Just 17 percent [of respondents] said they were following the protests “very closely”. Independents — at 19 percent — were keeping the closest eye on the “Occupy” efforts while just 12 percent of Republicans did the same.

Only 17 percent of self-identified Democrats said they had were [sic] watching the protests closely, a somewhat surprising number given the party’s recent embrace of the motives and goals of the “OWS” crowd.

"Very closely" is probably too high a standard to measure the importance of any movement's relevance to society at any given moment. This is especially true with respect to embryonic movements like Occupy Wall Street.

My examination of the Pew study adds additional context.  The five stories that respondents said they were following most closely include (in descending order): the economy, the death of Steve Jobs, the 2012 election, Amanda Knox, Afghanistan, and Occupy Wall Street. Yet, the study finds that only 7 percent of recent news coverage related to the Wall Street protests. Not surprisingly, only 7 percent of respondents listed the protests as the most important news story. The scant media coverage makes it difficult for the average member of the public to follow the protests closely.

The study also finds that the public is less concerned with the Wall Street protests than it was with the Tea Party in 2009, during the early stage of its development. Pew finds, however, that media coverage of both movements was roughly equal during their developmental stages.  Cillizza seizes upon this data to bolster his argument about the irrelevance of the protests.  But neither Pew nor Cillizza recognizes that the Tea Party protests were often violent and rancorous -- factors that invited public attention and which undoubtedly led to a subsequent surge in media coverage.

Final Word: A Tip for Organizers

Although I believe that Cillizza's column does not provide nearly enough context to help readers appreciate the Pew study, I also believe that participants in the early Occupy Wall Street movement must quickly cohere around a marketable and distinct message. At the moment, the group has apparently resisted developing a political platform or policy agenda. The lack of specific demands or proposals will likely deter media coverage and hinder growth in public attention.

Historically, successful social movements have utilized creative frames to express and market their messages. They have also developed public policy agendas that they wish to implement through the political process. Furthermore, successful social movements have raised the awareness of not only potential movement participants but of the public at large. Unless the budding Occupy Wall Street movement begins to utilize some traditional social movement mobilization techniques, it will probably dissipate without effectuating any meaningful social change.

[Note: I write and teach in the area of Law and Social Movements.]

UPDATE
Two new surveys suggest that Cillizza's article was shortsighted. First, a Time magazine survey finds that a 54 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Also, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds that 37 percent of respondents "tend to support" the movement; only 17 percent "tend to oppose" it.

Another Civil Rights Champion Dies: Paula Ettelbrick, 56

Another civil rights champion has died. Paula Ettelbrick, a lawyer and activist, succumbed to cancer this morning.

Although Paula's work focused primarily on LGBT issues, she viewed justice in very broad terms. As a result, she championed reforms related to gender, poverty, sexuality, race and many other concerns.

I had the pleasure to know Paula professionally and personally. Her work as an attorney and scholar inspired and taught me. The world has lost a great woman.

Paula's death occurred in the same week that legendary civil rights veterans Derrick Bell and Fred Shuttlesworth died. I hope that people who value justice will study the work of these individuals and become inspired by their tireless efforts. Social change is not an easy project. It requires courage, commitment and honesty. These three champions of equality prove that point.

Urvashi Vaid has a great tribute, which you can find here: Paula Ettelbrick and Feminist Leadership.

Obama's Debt-Reduction Plan: Has The Lion Found Courage?

Early reports of President Obama's debt-reduction bill reveal signs of courage in the proposal. According to the New York Times, for example, Obama has promised to veto any bill that does not include a tax increase. Also, the plan would increase taxes paid by the upper .03 percent of taxpayers. It would also allow the Bush-era tax cuts (extended by Congress during the Obama administration) to expire. Furthermore, conceding to the demands of liberals in Congress, Obama's plan does not include a change to the minimum age needed to qualify for Medicare or Social Security (see also, this article in the Washington Post).

Obama has frustrated many of his supporters by repeatedly conceding the center in his negotiations with Republicans and conservative Democrats. This proposal defies Republican threats and manages to deliver something that is worthy of support -- at least as the details have emerged so far.

I suspect that this plan has a lot to do with Obama's reelection bid than a sudden passion for more progressive economic policies. Well, politics is not for the faint of heart of the idealistic. Stay tuned for more updates.

UPDATE: Yes - he is in full-blown campaign mode. Too bad he does not exhibit such passion and leadership too often.

Game Time: Name One Leading Country That Follows the Tea Party Model of Government

The Tea Party and conservative Republicans -- including Ron Paul -- continue to scream about the perils of the national government. Anything that comes out of Washington is horrible, oppressive, and -- undoubtedly -- unconstitutional.

They seemingly want the nation to return to the type of country it was under the Articles of Confederation. Well, the Framers believed that this was a bad idea. So, as much as the conservatives lament the passage of a imagined fantasy land when the states, as provided by the Constitution, were all-powerful, history has involved an expansion of federal powers. And each generation has inscribed this expansion in the Constitution.

After the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, the next expansion in federal power came with the Civil War. Although conservatives want the states alone to determine the scope of important rights (e.g., Paul saying the states should decide abortion and sexual orientation issues), the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly limits the power of states with respect to substantive liberties, due process, equal protection and privileges and immunities. The Constitution also expands federal power with the Sixteenth Amendment, which gives Congress the power to tax income.

Conservatives have blatantly lied about history. Although they argue that the country was always -- until recently -- one of a very limited national government, the historical record shows that people in each generation of American history have generally favored more government due to the benefits that it brings to the People.

Rather than debating "whether" the government has a role in our lives, we should work together to identity issues that are suitable for governmental support and involvement. Instead, conservatives basically abhor anything at the federal level -- except for the military. While many liberals tend to think that a government-private sector collaboration is inherently suspicious - even though some of the most heralded liberal policies (like Medicare) involve a partnership with private entities.

This stalemate is extremely frustrating - particularly for those of us who have actual knowledge about history. The stalemate is also troublesome because it wastes precious time that we could spend mending the poor state of the country. And -- yes -- the government has a role in this as well.

So, here is a challenge to conservatives: Please name ONE (just one) country that has relative wealth, a democratic government, a good healthcare system, an educational system that provides basic early education for all residents, and a system of government that at least formally values due process, equal protection and civil liberty --- while at the same time having a central government that provides no services to the public -- except for national defense, that does not spend money to assist states with social services, and in which the people believe that government services are unhelpful, wrong, harmful to society, and a sign of totalitarianism.

TAKE A MINUTE. THINK. AND GET BACK TO ME.

Ron Paul Supporters: Fighting Mad!

Related Post: Game Time: Name One Leading Country That Follows the Tea Party Model of Government



Huffington Post has reprinted my article, Five Reasons Why Ron Paul Should Never Become President. Although the article generated buzz on Dissenting Justice, it has caused quite a stir at Huffington. Over 450 persons, primarily fans of Paul, have expressed their opinion on the article (and the number of posts grows even as I complete this essay).



The responses generally fall into the following categories:



1. "This article is garbage, horrible, disgusting, terrible, blah blah blah blah blah."

2. This article completely misrepresents Paul (without citing to one word in the article that is an actual misrepresentation).

3. Paul does not oppose abortion; he just wants it to be decided by the states.

4. Paul is not a racist. He opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it is unconstitutional. Besides, it is no longer needed.

These posts are pretty silly. The first two categories are completely nonsubstantive. Perhaps these individuals are frustrated beyond all reason because it is highly unlikely that Paul, who first ran for president in 1988, will come close to winning the GOP nomination in 2012.



The third category distorts my blog post. Regardless of Paul's personal views on abortion, his belief that only the states should decide the issue would transform abortion from a constitutional right (which it presently is) and turn it into an option that women could exercise only subject to the laws in her state.

By contrast, constitutional rights apply throughout the country; states do not get to limit or expand them. Leaving this issue to the states implicitly means that it would no longer be a constitutionally protected right. There is no way to dispute this. It is a completely accurate statement of constitutional law.

The fourth category is dead wrong on the law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of the civil rights legislation. Furthermore, Paul's arguments are simply a modern rehashing of the Dixiecrats' views in the 1960s -- regardless of whether he is a bigot or not. Also, many studies demonstrate that racial discrimination in employment continues -- despite the legislation. Removing it would free companies to do so without a legal deterrent. Finally, if the legislation is unnecessary, then why repeal it? If companies are no longer discriminating, then they should not worry about the existence of the law.



To their credit, other individuals (only a few) agree that the blog post fairly presents Paul's past statements. Nevertheless, they say this is precisely why they support him. In other words, they agree with Paul's positions on the issues without accusing me of some conspiracy to misportray him. At least these individuals are intellectually honest. I commend them.



To the rest: thanks for bringing attention to the article. As a result of your efforts, more folks than I ever expected have now read the article. Many have emailed me and thanked me for the post. Now, a lot more people have a clearer understanding of Paul and his ideas. I suspect a lot of them will also decline to vote for him.

Update: There is one additional strand of analysis from Paul supporters: As president, Paul could not implement many of his ideas that you find threatening because the president cannot enact or repeal legislation.

This is probably one of the most troublesome -- but easily refuted -- claims. Of course presidents cannot enact or repeal legislation. Nonetheless, they are influential in the legislative process. Conservatives know this; they describe the healthcare legislation as "Obamacare," rather than Congress-care.

Furthermore, the president is the legal head of the executive agencies. The agencies have a tremendous amount of power to interpret and execute federal statutes. Thus, Paul's view of statutory enactments and constitutional text is extraordinarily important. This is such a basic part of our political system. I am shocked that Paul's supporters would even make this style of argument.

Five Reasons Why Ron Paul Should NEVER Become President

[NOTE: I have published a new Ron Paul article on Huffington Post: Dear Washington Post: Ron Paul Is NOT a Champion of Civil Liberty]


[Related post: Ron Paul Supporters: Fighting Mad!]

Fans of Representative Ron Paul have recently begun to criticize the media. Paul's supporters believe that the media has unfairly neglected his perpetual bid to receive the presidential nomination for the Republican Party.

Perhaps Paul's supporters should reconsider their criticism of the media. For, if Paul actually received substantial scrutiny, his ideas would undoubtedly frighten most voters.

Paul is charismatic. He also comes across as a straight shooter. Some of his ideas -- like his opposition to militarism and the War on Drugs -- appeal to many voters, including liberals. His arguments about lower government spending and taxation sound good to folks who worry about budget deficits.

Paul's arguments, however, often lack an empirical basis. History has already demonstrated that many of Paul's proposed solutions will never work. Thus, while some of Paul's ideas sound solid in the abstract, they crumble once they are subjected to widely accepted theories about government and society.

Because Paul's ideas are faulty and dangerous, he would make a terrible president. Here are five reasons why Paul should never become president.

1. Paul would restrict abortion based on anecdotal "evidence," rather than science.

Ron Paul is pro-life. He says that he developed his views on abortion during his practice as an OB/GYN. Paul's official website states that: "[D]uring his years in medicine, never once did [Paul] find an abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman." Paul's statement, however, is troubling for two reasons.

First, medical science -- as opposed to Paul's anecdotal "evidence" -- proves that abortions are sometimes necessary to protect the life of the mother. Second, Paul's statement also contradicts the constitutional test articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and many subsequent decisions. According to established Court doctrine, states generally must make abortion available to protect the life and health of the mother. Even if Paul never witnessed a scenario where a woman needed a life-saving abortion, it is not difficult to imagine a situation where a woman needed an abortion to preserve her health.

Furthermore, conservatives have been trying to eliminate the health exception, which they believe amounts to "abortion on demand." According to the Supreme Court, however, a health condition means a psychological or physical condition which the doctor and patient decide warrants an abortion. While many Republicans want to limit abortion to life-saving procedures, Paul believes even this extreme exception is unnecessary based on anecdotes.

2. Paul has dreadful views regarding personal liberty and fundamental rights

Because Paul opposes abortion and everything done by the federal government (except the payment of his salary), he has proposed a bill called the "We the People Act." This bill, if passed, would prohibit federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from deciding whether state or local laws violate the "the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction. . .or. . .the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws."

Essentially, Paul wants to remove federal courts from the business of deciding whether state laws violate the federal constitution! Contrary to Paul's vision of government, the Constitution secures certain rights enforceable against the national government and states. The Supreme Court has an important role in protecting those rights against invasion.

In the context of fundamental rights, Paul, however, wants to transfer this important federal judicial role to state courts exclusively. Undoubtedly, many state courts would sharply curtail liberties currently recognized by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, this proposal would produce a system where the substance of federal rights varied state-by-state.

In addition Paul wants to "repeal" Roe v. Wade. Since Roe is a judicial opinion, rather than a statute, he really wants a constitutional amendment reversing the ruling. Regardless, Paul's horrific proposals would endanger several personal liberties secured by the Constitution, including the right to terminate a pregnancy.

3. Paul would threaten the independence of the federal judiciary.

Paul's proposals show a striking disregard for the independence of federal courts. Although public opinion and the actions of the political branches influence court decisions, the courts do not operate as representatives of the electorate. Instead, the Framers envisioned a court system that would operate as a check against unlawful action by the government.

Paul, however, would remove a lot of substantive issues from the jurisdiction of the courts (see above). The We the People Act, which Paul has proposed, would also prevent the federal courts from "issuing any ruling that appropriates or expends money [or] imposes taxes. . . ." Supreme Court precedent, however, already prohibits courts from imposing taxes or expending money of the states. So Paul's proposal is unnecessary.

But Paul wants more than this. He also wants to prohibit any court ruling that "otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states." This sweeping passage would virtually negate judicial enforcement of federal law -- including the Constitution (not to worry - this is what makes the proposal unconstitutional).

If a state passes a statute that mandated racial segregation in its public schools, a decision by the Supreme Court that enjoined enforcement of that law would interfere with the "legislative" and "administrative" function of the state. It does not take much analysis to discover the danger in this proposal.

4. Paul wants to repeal historic legislation that was responsible for curtailing racial and sex discrimination in the workplace and for prohibiting racial discrimination in places of public accommodation.

Ron Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The legislation prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Paul believes that the legislation violates the Constitution. Specifically, he argues that Congress lacks the power to pass the law and that the law violates the rights of employers.

The Supreme Court disagrees with Paul; so does the public. Americans have decided that they want a society in which employers cannot use race and sex as a basis for exclusion. Contrary to Paul's assertion, this vision is absolutely consistent with the Constitution, via both the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Furthermore, Paul is simply rehashing the same arguments that Dixiecrats made as they struggled to maintain Jim Crow and white supremacy. People who lack knowledge of history might find Paul's statements about freedom to contract and association appealing, but they are simply a contemporary version of arguments that prevented women and persons of color from having economic opportunities. Paul would seek to reverse over five decades of social progress.

History proves that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was instrumental in achieving racial integration in southern schools. Until that act was passed, only about 1% of southern blacks went to school with whites -- despite the fact that the Supreme Court had decided Brown v. Board of Education ten years earlier. The legislation, however, tied federal funding for schools to antidiscrimination principles. The southern states sluggishly chose to integrate, rather than lose vital federal education assistance.

On the one hand, Paul opposes federal court enforcement of constitutional rights. At the same time, however, he opposes congressional remedies for racial and sex discrimination and enforcement of equal protection. Paul essentially wants to turn racial and gender equality over to the whims of the private sector and states. His ideas regarding civil rights are unsound, and they would undermine the nation's unfinished project of social justice.

5. Paul wants to erode the power of voters by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

Over the course of history, the American people have amended the Constitution to provide greater power to voters and to enhance democratic participation. The Fifteenth Amendment allows people to vote regardless of race (although it took nearly a century to make this a reality). The Nineteenth Amendment allows people to vote regardless of sex. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment allows persons who have reached the age of eighteen to vote. Furthermore, the Seventeenth Amendment allows individual voters of each state to elect US Senators directly. Previously, the Constitution delegated this authority to state legislatures.

Paul and many other conservatives want to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. Although their arguments are not entirely coherent, most conservatives in this camp claim that repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would help protect the states against the national government. Others blame the growth of the national government on the inability of state legislatures to elect senators.

This position is flawed for several reasons. First, the Seventeenth Amendment is an important tool of individual liberty and democracy. Repealing it would contradict important values of American political life.

Second, the connection between the Seventeenth Amendment and growth of the federal government is sheer speculation; it is also incorrect. The government has grown because voters have decided that they need the government to deliver important services that states alone cannot secure.

Furthermore, most of the spending programs that Congress creates for the nation are voluntary. If states do not want to comply with federal regulations tied to spending programs, they can refuse the money. But state lawmakers do not want to anger voters by depriving them of important benefits, like school funding, healthcare, and safe roads.

Repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would undo a major element of America's move toward democracy. For this reason alone, Paul is unfit for president.

Final Thought

I applaud the efforts of Paul's fans to attract media attention for the candidate they support. This attention could lead to greater awareness of Paul's views among the electorate. If people actually hear the policies that Paul supports along with critical analysis, they will undoubtedly disapprove of his candidacy.

Please note: There are so many other reasons why Paul would make a terrible president. I hope to explore those issues in a future blog.

UPDATE:

I changed the first point (regarding abortion) to correct my inadvertent description of Paul as "pro-choice." I also made other stylistic changes. I regret any inconvenience.