And now for Gore?

[Brad De Long]

>Chris, aside from what I read as a thoroughly myopic sense of what
>Gore's about -- see the Nation magazine's July critique for example
>-- I don't know how you'd justify this statement below given your
>strong sentiments on behalf of int'l regulation of K.
>
>> From:          Chris Burford <cburford at gn.apc.org>
>> Subject:       And now for Gore?
>> I have been impressed but also a little surprised at the forebearance of US
>> contributors to discuss Clinton. Why gossip about what was obvious? I
>> presume was the feeling. Plus a sense that while you would not want to
>> campaign for him, he was better than his predecessors...
>
>No, it was always much easier to fight the global neo-liberal onslaught
>when led by Reagan/Thatcher and Bush; as Clinton turned to
>promoting Nafta, Gatt, IMF/WB recap and all the rest, any residual
>integrity in the Democratic Party evaporated and the tiny
>liberal-left contingent had to turn to the Far Right for anti-neo-lib
>alliances. Clinton, the Wall Street Journal said before his
>reelection, is the best president corporate America ever had.
>Precisely because as a Democrat he eviscerated the left flank. This
>goes for any number of issues, not just global political economy...
>
>P.

*Sigh*

There was a time when opening up the U.S. market to imports from poor
countries--so that Bengali peasants could move from very, very low-paid
farmworker jobs to low-paid textile-operative jos--was a left-wing cause in
America.

That left was a lot more attractive from the standpoint of promoting human
happiness than this pseudo-Pat-Buchanan left is turning out to be...

Brad DeLong