The context for this statement was Orwellian assertions to the effect that 'social protection' is a tool of capital.
The distinction between anarchic capitalists and the leaders of the capitalist class, so to speak, is well taken, but in that case there is an equal lack of evidence on the part of the Clintonoids of any substantive support for social protection in trade rules. Any bending they have done is in response to labor pressure, and particularly in light of the fact that it's an election year. The "fair trade" rhetoric of Dem politicians waxes and wanes systematically in response to the political calendar.
>>>>>>>>>>
. . . American foreign policy, military and economic, is 100%
America-First. The Nixon-Reagan-Clinton path has never veered one inch from
the path of national glory. It's all about America . . .
[mbs] The whole question is what constitutes 'national glory.' I would say downgrading the U.S. industrial system to less-skilled, lower-paying work is not precisely the sort of national glory thought suitable in other times. As far as trade goes, Reagan and Clinton have been pretty consistent; can't speak on Nixon. But this is mostly secondary to my point, which was that painting the progressive movement's drive for social protection clauses as a tool of imperialism is simple slander by the politically lost.
cheers, mbs