What does a Bernie/Tulsi/Green person like me think? What are strategic lessons for me and others?
But first-- Fact: The AFL-CIO, the largest federation of unions in the United States, made of 55 unions and representing over 12 million (12,000,000) active and retired workers [1] last month endorsed on its official website [2] the USMCA, Trump's US-Mexico-Canada trade deal (modified with input from Democrats and with/after pressure from workers' groups and others) and the federation of unions headlined its endorsement: "AFL-CIO Endorses USMCA After Successfully Negotiating Improvements"
As someone who fought in the trenches against NAFTA back in the year 1993 (and gave my first "real" speech to a real crowd of activists at the time, opposing NAFTA) I don't need a lecture or reminders from fellow progressives that even after the improvements that AFL-CIO and others fought for USMCA falls short in many areas of what a really fair agreement looks like -- more on that in minute. (And corporate-centered "trade" deals' anti-democratic anti-sovereignty tendency to have unelected bureaucrats/corporate lawyers meeting in secret behind closed doors overrule our domestic laws are a whole other discussion on top of labor and fairness and environmental protections) but back to those:
And yes I "like" to be contrarian as a leftist because the levels of #TrumpDerangementSyndrome levels created by the same MSM and Deep State and talking heads who told us the Iraq War was a great idea (yes I was among few who not only opopsed it but spoke out against) are at sky-high levels -- and the harm done to causes I believe in as a lefty -- as much or more than the hysteria harms Trump... But I have another reason to highlight this -- besides the inherent, intrinsic importance -- namely since that 1993 protest I spoke at (and opposing NAFTA starting at least a year before when it was a goal but not yet passed) is in that over quarter-century, how many (even modest, semi, partial) victories have working people have in terms of Trade Deals? Next to none. So this is important.
AFL-CIO: "Labor
Federation President Richard Trumka on the United States-Mexico-Canada
Agreement (USMCA), provided final text accurately reflects changes: 'Make no
mistake, we demanded a trade deal that benefits workers and fought every
single day to negotiate that deal; and now we have secured an agreement
that working people can proudly support.' " who besides thanking both Democrats, specifically thanks Trump's [3a][3b] trade representative Lighthizer in almost glowing terms, with Trumka stating near the top of his statement, "I also commend Ambassador Robert Lighthizer for being a straight shooter and an honest broker as we worked toward a resolution."
Trumka then said the deal is a "vast improvement" over both NAFTA and the 2017 proposed USMCA version, here's the direct quote:
Working
people are responsible for a deal that is a vast improvement over both
the original NAFTA and the flawed proposal brought forward in 2017. For
the first time, there truly will be enforceable labor
standards —including a process that allows for the inspections of
factories and facilities that are not living up to their obligations.
The USMCA
also eliminates special carve outs for corporations like the giveaway
to Big Pharma in the administration’s initial proposal and loopholes
designed to make it harder to prosecute labor violations.[2]
The statement adds that USMCA is "far from perfect" and said additional actions are necessary to combat outsourcing, inequality, and environmentally damaging practices and called for a "repeal of tax cuts which reward companies for shipping our jobs overseas"
Apparently the first time in almost 20 years [Reference 2.2 below] that AFL-CIO endorsed a deal, meaning perhaps early in GWB term but *none* during Obama years -- team Blue had 8 years to try but didn't, replace NAFTA with something "vastly" less damaging -- more fails. Trump asserts at least *some* of the loopholes that rewarded companies to ship jobs overseas, were removed [2.3]in USMCA: "Under NAFTA, companies were given huge incentives to produce cars in foreign countries and ship them to America tax-free; no tax, no nothing; we lost our jobs, we lost our factories, and other countries built our [U.S.-"make"] cars, but we've changed that, and we're not setting records. The USMCA closes [some of?] these terrible loopholes and includes strong provisions to ensure that new cars are fashioned by American hands, that's a fancy way to say: American-built"
Meanwhile Reuters reported [2.4] that the version of USMCA that passed, unlike the earlier proposal, also "reduced patent protections that some feared would drive up drug prices." And it quoted Trumka who "in an interview" said:
"This isn't a perfect agreement; it still has
room for improvement. But it [USMCA] is well on its way to getting there,"
Back to the main [2] AFL-CIO statement of endorsement --it concludes:
But there
is no denying that the trade rules in America will now be fairer
because of our hard work and perseverance.
So is the glass half-full or half-empty? Aside from the fact that "vast improvement" suggests it's more than 50% full, I would normally be inclined to focus on the empty parts, after a very short pause to smile at the steps forward USMCA represents.
But these are not normal times -- or more accurately perhaps, longstanding pathologies in our political system and the polarizing media spin, propaganda and lies -- have led to higher levels of hysteria and illusion not only by liberals brainwashed by the establishment but even many progressives.
A *huge* part of the message I've been intensively sharing for a number of months (and less intensively but several times, for the last few years) is the squandered opportunities for coalitions -- anti-war, anti-deep-state, pro-fair-trade, pro-infrastructure, anti-censorhip and more (See my Draft 1.0 web page http://www.leftrightforward.net/ ) while giving us DNC-backed draconian attacks on free speech (including online advertising and vlogging by progressives just as much as conservatives -- if we're small and/or anti-war/anti-establishment) and circuses of smears, innuendo, and outright lies in their lust to either get rid or Trump, or twist his arm into "playing ball" the way presidents are "supposed" to: being far *more* warmongering, far *more* subservient to the CIA/War Machine/FBI etc, than Trump (for all his faults) has been willing to be.
"Squandered" because in 2002/early 2003 we anti-war lefties didn't have anti-war allies on the right who was whipped up into a pro-war hysteria of intensity similar to the Deep State-MSM-whipped-up hysteria of the Maddow brand RussiaGaters -- it would have been a dream-come-true back then, to imagine today's potential anti-war coalitions at grassroots citizen level, across political spectrum. (thogh also a nightmare how much worse the US empire's gotten, and how DNC has worked hard to approach GWB's level of slaughter) -- and squandered because in 1993 when I protested against NAFTA I couldn't find many allies on the right -- some Perot people were conservatives but not that many -- and even fewer of them were online -- it would be a dream-come-true if I went back in time to 1993 and told myself of 2016-present where the grassroots conservatives were (a large fraction) for Fair Trade -- a generation ago they were like the elite establishment liberals: conservatives would tell you that the market knows best and whatever comes out, that's "fair" or that even talking about fairness is crazy talk, we need competition and efficiency and...etc words that we're all brainwashed with to get us to shut up and go with whatever "the program" is for corporate rule, in the corporate feudalism we live under.
Even when some progressives call USMCA "weak tea at best" [4] (then adding "Despite these concerns, the USMCA may yield benefits for workers in a
few industries, such as glass and steel. And it may result in
significant improvements in labor rights for Mexican worker" but concerned that no real measures in it will help US wages) [4] -- even that message added that USMCA was not only better than NAFTA, and all alternatives, but also better it said, than just pulling out of NAFTA without a replacement. It was the best outcome of the limited, all very flawed, existing alternatives.
These are dangerous words I try to seldom use but, my past appeals have been doubly right, here's how: BOTH the fact that the USMCA is a major improvement over both NAFTA and the 2017 proposed, *and* the fact that what did pass as USMCA is still quite flawed -- both of these, yes both, make my point: Instead of McCarthyist pro-FBI pro-CIA pro-warmongering pro-censorship pro-"controlled"-elections mania we should have been working for years now a la LeftRightForward website and similar ideas advanced by others -- working together Left and Right Unite at the grassroots level, but also then demanding our politicians work together-- in the interest of the people, especially on areas like anti-war/EndTheEmpire/EndRegimeChangeWars and especially on pro-Fair-Trade that the Left and Right largely agree on at the grassroots level.
The few times Dems have allowed this, we've had huge steps forward like the First Step Act and other very positive, helpful steps taken by the Trump administration in follow-up or in coordination with Congress -- See my summary: http://www.lesserevil2020.com/trump-domestic/ -- to which the Paid Parental Leave for federal employees is a recent addition on that page, another example that few people under the spell of DNC have heard of, or know very much about -- and I'm about to add a slightly cleaned up version of this email to that page.
-- and the fact that USMCA is still quite flawed, proves that what I urged -- more cooperation Left and Right at the people level on areas we agree on, of which there are many such as those listed above; and pushing for more cooperation at the government level, instead of McCarthyist totalitarian warmongering hysteria by DNC-CIA-FBI-MSM complex-- should indeed have been pursued far more than what minimal amount is has been.
So both the many steps forward/successes, and the many shortcomings of USMCA *both* make that point. I've sent out "Shocking Numbers: Infrastructure is bad in US? It's Even Worse than you think"
Second to last point -- FACT I can't repeat often enough, as someone who is past the point of exhaustion from fighting against our endless wars and US-created terror around the world since around 1985, 35 years now -- Trump's death-toll, terrible as it is since even one human life lost is a tragedy -- Trump's number of people killed in invasions wars etc -- is perhaps around a fraction or around ***10%*** or less of the Obama-Hillary pile of corpses of dead civilian men, women, children and babies (around 500,000+ in their backing of literally jihadist terrorists they called rebels -- in Libya and Syria combined with weapons pipeline between the two; maybe they got the idea from Reagan-BushSr who backed islamist extremist terrorists in Afghanistan in 1980s? No, just reminding conservative readers the party isn't the solution. Ending the Empire and Deep State are the solution) or the GWB death toll of 500,000 to more like 1,000,000+ dead civilians in Iraq and aftermath, or the Bill and Hillary Clinton (Hillary as both FLOTUS and as Senator she kept pushing it) the genocidal-by-design, yes by deliberate premeditated design in what should be called the Clinton 1990s Genocide [5] of about 1,000,000 dead.
That's to say nothing of the human slave auctions in Libya, the millions of refugees, or the George W. Bush and Obama and Hillary jointly created, supported (at best) indirectly ISIS and Al Qaeda. (had Trump done *zero* against ISIS and Al Qaeda he'd still be on that count head and shoulders ahead of GWB, HRC, and BO (who allowed HRC to) helped create/enlarge their power. Doing zip is better than creating massive damage. But while Trump likes to forget the roles of Russia, and Hezbollah and Iranian forces in (as even US MSM sometimes admits were in the lead in) crushing ISIS especially throughout Syria, he's done more htan zero; again, even "zero action" would be far ahead of the GWB-HRC (and BO-enabled HRC) school of foreign policy)
Then there's
domestic things Trump has done that --
bad as Trump looks when compared to what *should* have been done -- compare favorably to decades by Clintons (especially) and even Obama years -- the NAFTA-backing, TPP-pushing (Clintons; Obama) or Mass-Incarceration "super-predator" and support-for-single-mothers-and
-kids SLASHING by the Clintons I saw in the 1990s -- compared to moving in opposite direction by Trump, who cares the motivations "I want to prove what they say about me is wrong" or just the same political self interest that all politicians (even ones I like today) have, they all have them -- compared to the massive Democrat-branded (so far less liberals oppose it, many back the damaging above list) and reversing to let people out of prison, give them job training, housing, education (see Second Chance link at http://www.lesserevil2020.com/trump-domestic/ ) and more (same link)
Last point -- on the Trade deal, I can think of three people to compare Trump to, 3 from the year 2016 -- on Trade Deals.
One person in 2016 who would have done far worse than Trump -- Hillary, who not only backed NAFTA, but also backed TPP before pretending late in the game to have changed her mind-- and as Debbie Lusignan the Sane Progressive explored on her vlog a few years ago, that wasn't enough lying for Hillary-- a third example was the Colombia FTA where she said one thing, promised to oppose, then got in, and did the opposite, as Debbie reviewed in several videos. In a world where it should be "1 strike and you're out" for politicians when it's a backstabbing trade deal -- HRC had at least three strikes(NAFTA, TPP, Colombia FTA)
And I can think of two people from 2016 if we allow alternate world histories. Trump used to be a Democrat. Had the democrats not embraced the pro-NAFTA wing, in a parallel timeline Trump running as Democrat in 2016 could have been not my idea of populist but still a populist that may have done what the December 2019 USMCA did -- but such a Democratic-brand version of Trump could have likely pushed for even more protections for workers rights, against toxic contamination of environment etc.
The other obvious person from 2016 doesn't require alternate timelines of a Trump running as populist democrat -- it was Bernie -- it was the one who in *this* timeline ran as a populist and had opposed NAFTA and opposed the Iraq War and did other things that (even conservatives, honest ones, who overall don't like Bernie admit) show Bernie stood up for things when it was not the politically easy thing to do -- opposing the Iraq War and opposing NAFTA -- based on his views --but Bernie was cheated.
Trumka who in a Reuters piece where his AFL-CIO's endorsement of USMCA is quoted as saying the USMCA is a "first step to undoing the evils of NAFTA" still put in that when taken with all of Trump's other actions on labor issues -- Trump in the balance of all those things combined, comes out on the short side. Trumka also tried to prove how working class he is by being on break from killing (or shooting to try to kill) deer in Pennsylvania, but there's something Trumpka didn't do: become an early backer or any backer at all of Bernie: they did the opposite and *crushed* a "revolt" by rank and file. I hate to link to Politico with its more gentle form but strong form of pro-Establishment and Trump Derangement Syndrome and pretending there's Russians under your bed, but Politico has a headline [6] covering it so I will; the VT and SC AFL-CIO's but not the national [7] endorsed Bernie; the national did worse:
AFL-CIO leader tries to quell pro-Sanders revolt
The labor federation’s rules don’t allow its state and local leaders to endorse presidential candidates[while the National leaders are allowed but were too timid (to phrase it very kindly) to endorse Sanders, evidently -H] , Richard Trumka says as the Vermont senator surges.
By BRIAN MAHONEY 07/03/2015 06:34 AM EDT
Richard Trumka has a message for state and local AFL-CIO leaders tempted to endorse Bernie Sanders: Don’t. In a memo
this week to state, central and area divisions of the labor federation..the AFL-CIO chief reminded the groups that its
bylaws don’t permit them to “endorse a presidential candidate” or
“introduce, consider, debate, or pass resolutions or statements that
indicate a preference for one candidate over another.” Even “‘personal’
statements” of candidate preference are verboten, Trumka said.The memo comes amid signs of a..local officials and rank
and file, who are increasingly drawn to the Democratic Party’s growing
progressive wing, for whom Sanders is the latest
standard-bearer. The
South Carolina and Vermont
AFL-CIOs [had]
passed resolutions supporting Sanders, and some local
AFL-CIO leaders in Iowa want
to introduce a resolution at their August convention backing
the independent senator from
Vermont"
but national AFL CIO nixed those
sentiments.
Conservatives
are wrong when (many of them) demonize *all* unions let
alone rank and file local level union officials trying to
get safer workplaces, decent benefits etc for their
co-workers. Union top level leadership though is like
top level political leadership -- a few good, many so-so, --
-- and plenty of comromised (or worse) --
-- in --
-- --
--power.
Finally(
really, finally) hoever is president or wins Congressional
seats is not irrelevant but like the energizer bunny it
can't be said enough: that's no more and arguably less
important than the size and strength and depth of
grassroots citizens coalitions, espeically across the
politicdal
spectrum; (A)
terrible politicians but strong coatlision? Then can have
positive steps in domestic and foreign policy;
versus (B)
well meaning politician but
weak/apathetic/brainwashed/isolated masses? Terrible
damage can be done by them. Yet we foolishly put
95% to 99% of our civic/political/activism energy into just
elections. This must change if we don't want another repeat
of the last 40+
years.
-
HReferences:
P.S.:
Soon adding cleaned up version of this email to page on
positives that show the Left is squandering opportunities to
collaborate on domestic policies where there is agreement,
overlap etc with Trump and his
base:
We
still haven't done big infrastructure bipartisan bill -- Trump --
-- and his base want a Trillion --
again a "dream come true" this would seem like if you went
back to me 20, or more years ago and told me there would some
day be allies on the conservative side of the spectrum -
-and why are we squandering this opportunity for bipartisan
bill on infrastructure? So we can have impeachment
circuses that shilll for the CIA, FBI, and for
corruption Biden literally bragged on stage that he got a
prosecutor
fired:
Bernie
supporter and vlogger [27k subscribers] Jamarl Thomas: "HUGE
SCANDAL: Obama Admin & DNC Colluded w/Ukrainian Gov't To
Interfere w/2016 Presidential
Election"
See 14:13 where
Biden brags on stage at Council on Foreign Relations how he
personally got Ukrainian prosecutor
fired
See
also the 6:57 mark where Ukraine's own Court
system finds the Obama administration effort to get Ukraine to
attack the Trump campaign, was illegal, when BO admin asked
Ukraine make public statements against a Trump
associate.
See
also
Jamral
Thomas: Trump "Whistleblower" Scandal Is A Non Story
Class In Media Propaganda | DNC/Joe Biden Are Corrupt
