Fwd: "global corporate liberalism"

Doug Henwood dhenwood at panix.com
Fri Mar 17 15:55:19 PST 2000


[John Gulick asked me to post this. By the way, I think I'm responsible for feeding Pat B the "Marx was for free trade" line. I was on an obscure cable network with his sister Bay discussing NAFTA a few years ago, along with John Cavanagh of IPS and a really terrible woman from Forbes. The Forbesian was the only pro-NAFTA person on the panel. At one point, I said to her, "You're getting beaten up pretty badly here, so let me give you some support. You might not be pleased with its source, but at least it's support. In his 1848 speech on free trade, Marx said that free trade intensified the class conflict and hastened the revolution, so for that reason he was for free trade." Bay got a big kick out of this. A week or two later, the "Marx was a free trader" showed up in Pat's column and in his stump speech.]

-----

John Gulick writes....

Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 15:11:09 -0800 (PST) From: <jlgulick at sfo.com> To: dhenwood at panix.com

Several items in the news recently are convincing me ever the more that the Dem Party now carries the banner of multicultural corporate liberalism (kind of like Studies on the Left's "corporate liberalism" with diversity consultants and conflict resolution specialists added into the mix), while the Repub Party carries the banner of nativist/ populist neo-isolationism. Perhaps in the last decade's wake of the end of authoritarian state socialism and the Cold War, and of the rise of the "class of '94" Repubs, this is hardly a new insight, but what do you make of the following ?

Item One: In an article posted to this list yesterday, it is revealed that in this Y2K campaign fund-raising cycle, the Dems are attracting as much big biz soft money donations as are the Repubs. Granted, I don't think the article broke down the sources/amounts of the soft money contributions sector-by-sector (e.g. globally-oriented finance K/ Fortune 500 vs. domestically-oriented real estate development), and it's also clear that big biz money is flowing to the Dems in roughly equal amounts partially b/c big biz anticipated Dem victories in the fall and is "hedging its bets." Still ... (BTW, how come so many fewer left scholars are analyzing the social base of the parties than during th 1980's, when so much ink was spilled on decoding the social base behind the Reagan conservative coalition ?).

Item Two: Other articles posted to this list yesterday indicated that Gephardt, supposedly the bellwether of the "fair trade"/"protectionist" (I'm not going to join the debate on the proper terminology here) wing, a) Dem Party, a) criticized the Meltzer report on scaling back the IBRD as "neo-isolationist," b) has fallen in line w/Clinton & Gore on admitting China to the WTO.

Item Three: Wildcard and loose cannon Dem Congressman James Traficant of Ohio was on C-Span last night, threatening to bolt from the Dem Party, b/c, among other things, the Dems want to deprive the citizenry of their right to bear arms (which would leave arms in the hands of the police, the army, the BATF, the FBI, etc., leading to more Wacos and Ruby Ridges), and b/c the Pentagon is spending dough on UN peace-keeping missions in the Balkans and sub-Saharan Africa, when it should be allocating its resources to militarizing the US-Mexico border (recall also that Traficant was an outspoken critic of NAFTA from a xenophobic/protectionist perspective). He was also advocating instituting a national sales tax and abolishing the IRS. (Note that Traficant is under Justice Department indictment for something or other).

Item Four: Hard-line conservative Congressman Rohrbacher of Orange County CA (also former speechwriter for Reagan) was also on C-Span last night, blasting Clinton/Gore for coddling "butchers of Beijing," for not playing hardball w/price-gouging OPEC members (the ingrates to whom "we" gave money and blood in Gulf Slaughter of '91 are now "raping the American middle class"), and for their "globalism" (they care about the fate of the planet, I say we should care about America first).

Item Five: Pat Buchanan was on Crossfire last night. When the commentator asked pitchfork Pat to explain his alliance w/the "loony left" (e.g. Fulani) who profess "Marxism," Buchanan said in essence, "I'm not a Marxist, Marx was for free trade ..."

Now certainly Wall Street/Fortune 500 are in the Dubya camp, but it seems to me more and more every day that the Dem Party at the national level is esposuing Trilateral Commission/Tom Friedman-style "global corporate liberalism," and the Repub Party is more and more embracing (at least at the more grass roots level) nativist/populist/neo-isolationist opposition to "globalization" (making for weird events like Cockburn and Buchanan appearing on the same dais, Buchanan's strategic defection to the Reform Party notwithstanding -- i.e. basically a gesture to pull the Repubs in a more nativist/populist/neo-isolaionist direction). Comments ?

John Gulick



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list