The Trans Pacific Partnership a blow to democracy.

It's time to get the word out on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), a free trade agreement that is being negotiated by representative of 12 Pacific Rim countries including the United States.  But describing  it this way doesn't quite do justice to the anti-democratic nature of this type of trade agreement. The so-called representatives are not elected they are appointed, their meetings are secret and in addition to the government official involved representatives from more than 600 corporations are there to help write the rules of the new economy . Without public conversation about the potential trade agreement and its negotiations they become even more secretive.

Like a variety of trade agreements before it, again for  this one the negotiators are pushing for Congress to grant fast track authority to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). This would mean that once an agreement was reached it would be brought to Congress for an up or down vote, no negotiations. When 11 other countries all agree to enter into a trade agreement the peer pressure on Congress gets intense. 

Trade watchdogs see the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) an attempt to take up where the World Trade Organization (WTO) failed. Just a reminder about why and how the World Trade Organization talks came to a stand still: In 1999 the WTO met in Seattle, and it encountered streets filled with demonstrations. Seemingly out of nowhere, but really built from long campaigns of hard work by small grassroots organizations across the country, thousands of labor, environmental and human rights activist took to the streets of Seattle to critique the process and the product that was being proposed. Things got heated up and cops with tear gas and nightsticks made it onto the news this gave smaller and poorer countries the courage to stand up to Bill Clinton and the rest of the corporate globalist. Although future talks tried to avoid American shores, the wind and the will had been taken out of the WTO sails.

After trade talks by the World Trade Organization stalled the United States government decided to pursue smaller trade agreements, a number of bilateral agreements were reached. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) moves beyond bilateral agreements to a broader framework. What only two years ago was nine country now is 12. More countries are interested in joining. As a larger agreement, its impact promises to be more ominous than those of the smaller bilateral free trade accords. We would be right to be suspicious of the economic claims that advocates for such trade agreements make. The North American Free Trade Agreement NAFTA was supposed to create jobs, but evaluations of the economic effects of NAFTA showed that the trend was in the opposite, job loss in the United States and job loss in Mexico.

Beyond the economic concerns, the broader issue is that the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)poses tremendous threats to our already shakey democracy. Local laws can become subordinate to demands of international corporations through trade agreements such as the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). We saw this with NAFTA as Canada and Mexico had the opportunity to challenge any law that they found to be a barrier to free trade. The classic example was a case where California had band a particularly toxic fuel additive that was showing up in the environment, unfortunately the maker of the additive was a Canadian corporation, by the rules of NAFTA the Corporation was able to sue California and overturn this law as a barrier to free trade.

In Michigan progressives are well aware that emergency manager law usurps democratic power and we see the results of this amounting to the undermining of workers’ rights, and a sellout of public assets. So-called free trade agreements, are even more antidemocratic emergency manager law undermines democracy one town at a time, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) promises to do that for 12 or more countries all at once. So far this agreement has mostly maintained secrecy and invisibility. It's time to bring it out of the shadows.  We need to see it, critique it, and prevent it.  The fact that it hasn't gotten more visibility is reflective of a media that is under strict corporate control. But that means it’s up to us to get the word out. It’s up to us to hold on to our democracy, to build it stronger.

snip-its of hope from my annual letter

Every year I write an annual letter. This year I was initially inclined to write a diatribe about global warming and other horrors and injustices. When it comes to addressing these problems we may not have the will, but it isn’t for lack of ways. Through human cooperation we have the greatest access to the ways that the world needs. So the bulk of my wide world words this year are a story of my most personal part in the cooperative project. (see here: http://communitiesa2.blogspot.com/2013/02/hei-wa-house.html )

To conclude my comments on the world, I want to toss out a hand full of facts and ideas that are rays of hope for me, perhaps they will be for you too.   

1) The world is ahead of schedule in meeting the 2015 millennial water goal http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17270014 , 

2) last year saw only 222 cases of polio paralysis and so far this year none have been recorded http://www.polioeradication.org/Dataandmonitoring/Poliothisweek.aspx , 

3)  if you look at the statistics war is getting less common http://gaiaonpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/04/end-of-war-book-review.html. 

Any of these trends could reverse at any point, and there are certainly counter trends that might be sited, nonetheless they carry hope. 

4) Regarding non-violence I think the most valuable work that is being done is training for non-violent action and nonviolent speech,  groups like the Michigan Peace Team http://www.michiganpeaceteam.org/, and the Non- Violent Communication Center http://www.cnvc.org/ are a source of inspiration and hope for me. 

5)  Regarding the environment, I think that our relationship to food is very important. Building soil and the design science of permaculture show what is possible; I recently came across a 5 minute video about reclaiming a salt desert in the Middle East. "Greening the Desert", http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sohI6vnWZmk#   , shows an incredible project.

Letter to the Governor

I have to work tomorrow, but my son will be in Lansing at the capital protesting the pending right to work for less legislation.  I wanted my voice added so here is a quick letter I emailed to the Governor:

Dear Governor Snyder,

When you ran for office you appeared to be a moderate, many in Michigan supported you because they saw you as a moderate, and a candidate who could work in a bipartisan fashion. In addressing the so called right to work legislation I hope you can demonstration your moderation. 

I am not a member of a union, the clinic I work is too small to merit representation.  But as a nurse I am grateful for the Michigan Nurses Association.  They are a blessing to my profession.  Their role is not only to support fair treatment of nurses, but also to advocate for patients.  When a union represents a group of workers they all benefit even if they are not members. It is unfair to allow some workers to opt out of funding the organization that they benefit from.  Fortunately or unfortunately, there is no way to separate the task of advocating for workers by individual worker.

To my mind moderation means not supporting this contentious legislation.  Certainly not allowing it to pass during a lame duck session, and attaching a funding element just to prevent a referendum on the legislation is undemocratic. Please live up to your moderate credentials.

Open Ballot

The secret ballot has a number of protections that are important for a fair democracy, but it also has the potential of inhibiting political discourse. The intent is to protect individual from having to share who and what they are voting for, not to prevent the individual from being able to share who and what they are voting for and why. I haven't blogged nearly as much as I might have wanted to this political cycle. Today I voted by absentee ballot. And tonight on the eve of election day I will share what I voted and why.

At the top of the ticket I really wanted to vote for the Green party candidate Jill Stein for that matter Ross (Rocky) Anderson running in Michigan on the Natural Law party ticket would have also represented a political choice consistent with my views. In the end in spite of a five point lead in the polls I gave in and voted for Barack Obama. Obama is clearly candidate of the corporate political duopoly, is also a war criminal, but all indications are that a Mitt Romney presidency would only take the country further down the road of war, environmental destruction, further eroding civil liberties and further concentrating wealth. If Obama has acted immorally, a candidate like Romney who seems willing to say anything would most likely be worse so Obama gets my vote but with following slogan: “Reelect Obama, Impeach Obama.” 

As far as Democratic Party Senators go, Debbie Stabenow is not so bad, nonetheless with more than a 10 point lead over Pete Hoekstra I felt it reasonable to vote for John Litle the Natural Law party candidate. I know John personally, he is a grassroots activists, and he stands for many of the values I hold dear. He is also creative and radical in his politics.

For the 12th district Congress seat, again I was not happy about voting for the Democrat John Dingell. for years Dingell blocked improved energy standards in the auto industry. With a big spread between him and his Republican contender, I was very tempted to vote for the only other candidate running for this slot, a libertarian. After considerable web searching I could not find any information positions held by the Libertarian candidate.  Without knowing who he wants, I voted for Dingell instead. Dingell has done some good work over the years.

Jeff Irwin was the first Democrat I felt good about voting for. I have watched him in his first term, often taking importance to, and speaking out saying the right thing.

Although I often vote for a Green party candidate for the state Board of Education, this year I stuck to the Democrats Michelle Fecteau is already on the board, and has union activist credentials, Lupe Ramos-Montigny appears to be a good candidate, and amidst the right wing war on education having as many Democrats as possible is probably worth working for.

In terms of the University boards I split my tickets. For the U of M regents, I voted for Mark Bernstein commitment is lowering tuition, and Eric Borregard of the Green party. For MSU Trustee I voted Democrat Joel Ferguson, his Democratic running mate seemed only interested in the football, so Lloyd Clarke of the Green party got my other vote. Finally for Wayne State Governor I voted for Democrat Kim Trent, she seemed preferable to Sandra Hughes O’Brian the other Democrat. Margaret Guttshall has been running as a Green for the Wayne State Governors or many years. Her running mate Latham Redding might have got my vote but I didn't have any more information about that candidate.

On the county level, I was glad to vote for Justin Altman a libertarian running for prosecuting attorney. My hunch is that a libertarian in this position would help to undermine the war on people who do drugs. While others might still remember my campaign for Sheriff and quixotically right me in, I followed the advice of Planned Parenthood, and voted for Jeff Gallatin the Republican. This was not without some hesitation, I seem to recall, from my undergraduate days individuals who had Gallatin as a landlord, and rumors of him being somewhat scummy. Lawrence Kestenbaum the Democrat got my vote for clerk, in spite of him once bad mouthing me in my run for Sheriff, no hard feelings Larry. I voted for Catherine McClary over her Republican rival. And Evan Pratt cam well recommended for Water Commissioner. County Commissioner Conan Smith  comes from a progressive political family and is carrying on the tradition, so he got  my vote.

John Hieftje got my  vote for mayor although I was tempted to write in Steve Bean who ran an independent campaign a couple years back.  The unaffiliated candidate running against Heiftje is apparently a Republican who was late to file papers. Although his agenda includes a call for greater transparency, something the city could use, the rest of his agenda is not in line with where I’d like to see things go. Interfaith Council for peace and justice director Chuck Warpehoski got my vote for counsel.

When it comes to judges it's always a good idea to know a lawyer whose politics you trust at least a little. My cousin in law Eric Lipson is just such a person. Eric presently runs the student housing co-ops in Ann Arbor, but he knows lawyers and I trust him. He suggested Connie Kelly, Bridget McCormick, and Sheila Johnson for the Supreme Court, and Carol Kuhnke  for the judge of the 22nd Circuit Court. The only other contested judgeship was Timothy Connors versus Michael Woodyard, Connors had a number of endorsements from labor so he got my vote. As is often the case there were many judicial candidates running unopposed. For democracy to work there has to be an opposition, so when there are unopposed candidates I right people in mostly as a symbolic act. My writing candidates are almost always good friends and since their chances of winning are about as good as your good friends chances, I will spare you the races and who I wrote in.

For school board I voted for the present president Deb Mexicotte, for WCC board of trustees, there are some concerns about William Figg that led me to vote for Richard Landau and Diana Morton. For library board I voted for the one non-incumbent Lyn Davidge although I could have voted for up to four, voting only for her gives her the best chance of getting him. I think a new voice would be worthwhile on the board.

The state proposals were easy: no  on 1 , yes on 2, yes on 3, yes on 4 and no on 5 , and no on 6.

1.       1) I don’t want to give the state the power to overturn local city governments.

2.      2) Unions should be guaranteed collective bargaining rights, this will preempt attempts to make Michigan a right to work state.

3.     3) Between peek oil and global warming we need all of the renewable energy we can get and 3 gets us 25% renewable energy by 2025.  It doesn’t go far enough , but its in the right direction.

4.      4) Provides some quality protection for people receiving home care, it also promotes union rights for home care workers. All of this is good.

5.       5) Limits raises in taxes to popular votes of the electorate. This strikes me as a prohibitive standard.

6.       6) Gives the present Detroit to Canada bridge owner a monopoly on the border crossings.

 Finally there are the local propositions. Ann Arbor has a park millage renewal, (A) we have great parks, this millage is a renewal of a previous millage. I’m in favor of Parks. 

I voted against  (B) the arts millage.  As I understand it this would prevent funds being used for public art that are not specifically designated for art from a centralized fund.  Even though it raises funds for art it centralizes control over public art, and prevents art funds from coming from other department funds.  In the long run this sounds like it could work against the arts. 

 Perhaps the most controversial proposition on my ballot is the bond proposal to raise money for a new downtown library. I can see both sides of this issue they both say things that make sense. I went back and forth on this postal but in the end I'm not a fan of throwing buildings away. To my naive eye the library building seems like it is in great shape. Even if it does need some repair and upgrading this seems better than putting all that brick and concrete into a landfill. It's always good to acknowledge self-interest, and in spite of their insistence that there will be some downtown library services, I am nervous about the temporary loss of library services at a time when they are likely to be most useful to my children. 

Okay that's all I voted, if you haven't yet now it's your turn.

On Rhetoric

I watched three speeches last week, Elizabeth Warren’s, Bill Clinton's, and of course Barack Obama. Of the three, I was surprised to find Bill Clinton's speech the most compelling. I had anticipated that I would have found Elizabeth Warren’s speech most interesting, her politics are closer to my own than those of Clinton or Obama. Nonetheless, her speech contained little more than soundbites which is typical for these convention speeches. This doesn't negate my report for her as a candidate, nor my belief in her potential to use her intelligence and values as a politician. We are simply talking about rhetorical power at a given moment. President Obama, is more of a known quantity as an oratory. We've also had a good look at his politics over the last few years, both for good and ill. I did not have a lot of expectations for Obama's speech, but it seems conceivable that he could have put together something compelling or inspiring, what we got I think was middle-of-the-road Obama orientation, which is middle-of-the-road Obama politics. The power of Clinton's speech was in his ability to create a convincing narrative, and his ability to flush out the facts in a way that countered the Democratic parties opponents in the Republican party.  He was almost professorial, and there are plenty who don't like that in a political speech. For my part I appreciate an appeal to the intellect as well as emotion.

There was a time that I only thought poorly of rhetoric, it was the window trappings of ideas. But ideas do not live only in the realm of the ideal. I see now that ideas, particularly political ideas are valuable only to the extent that they can be communicated. But there is still the problem of political rhetoric where words sound good and actions ring hollow. I enjoyed Clinton's speech both for the story he told, and for his art as a storyteller, and he is not running for anything, so he can no longer disappoint us if he doesn't live up to his words. Perhaps we will leave that job to Barack Obama, or even Elizabeth Warren, the politician for whom I'm still a fan.

For those of us who sit at the left end of the Democratic Party, or to the left of the Democratic Party, if we wish to draw attention to our ideas we need the rhetorical skills that Bill Clinton displayed. Whatever our issue focused, how do we tie it into a narrative that can be or could potentially be broadly embraced, how then do we also demonstrate with the narrative that counter narratives are misguided or dishonest. Then the hardest part is the transition from revolution to governance, the best ideas whether rhetorically beautiful or not can be terribly difficult to implement once the opportunity is present.