The new political divide [Globalists of the world, unite!]

Farewell, left versus right. The contest that matters now is open against closed

AS POLITICAL theatre, America’s party conventions have no parallel. Activists from right and left converge to choose their nominees and celebrate conservatism (Republicans) and progressivism (Democrats). But this year was different, and not just because Hillary Clinton became the first woman to be nominated for president by a major party. The conventions highlighted a new political faultline: not between left and right, but between open and closed (see article). Donald Trump, the Republican nominee, summed up one side of this divide with his usual pithiness. “Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo,” he declared. His anti-trade tirades were echoed by the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party.

America is not alone. Across Europe, the politicians with momentum are those who argue that the world is a nasty, threatening place, and that wise nations should build walls to keep it out. Such arguments have helped elect an ultranationalist government in Hungary and a Polish one that offers a Trumpian mix of xenophobia and disregard for constitutional norms. Populist, authoritarian European parties of the right or left now enjoy nearly twice as much support as they did in 2000, and are in government or in a ruling coalition in nine countries. So far, Britain’s decision to leave the European Union has been the anti-globalists’ biggest prize: the vote in June to abandon the world’s most successful free-trade club was won by cynically pandering to voters’ insular instincts, splitting mainstream parties down the middle.

News that strengthens the anti-globalisers’ appeal comes almost daily. On July 26th two men claiming allegiance to Islamic State slit the throat of an 85-year-old Catholic priest in a church near Rouen.

They are called Free Trade Agreements because they remove tariffs or harmonize tariffs.

But they are actually Investor State Trade Agreement.

The Investors have to be protected from the state because the state might impose a tax masquerading as a regulation. In NAFTA, the investor protections are found in Chapter 11.

These "taxes masquerading as regulations" will be regulations on labor, environment, or welfare.

The unions and enviros say the Investor protections far exceed the protections for labor and environment.

Disputes are settled by the arbitration panel and each time the arbitration panels hands down a decision it is establishing a precedent and precedents add up to a "body of law" called investor state law and investor state law trumps national laws/regulations.

Many democrats despise Free Trade agreements and think they are way for the GOP to try to roll back the Great Society and the New Deal.

""body of law" called investor state law and investor state law trumps national laws/regulations.

Many democrats despise Free Trade agreements and think they are way for the GOP to try to roll back the Great Society and the New Deal."

And, you forgot a few characteristics of these agreements.

First, they codify unfair trade practices by our so-called partners, on multiple fronts. I'll argue them if you wish.

Second, they make a mockery of national sovereignty. To bind the American people, through their government, absent a Constitutional Treaty is a criminal violation of the Constitution.

And the American people are about the wash that stain away.

… for Mr Trump to urge Russia to keephacking Democrats’ emails is outrageous.

Actually, the distortion of Donald Trump's remarks is outrageous. The FBI has reported that the destruction of Hillary's home brew server meant that the e-mails could not be retrieved by the FBI itself and, therefore, could not be hacked by the Russians. It's quite possible that the Russians already have the e-mails in which case the only people being kept in the dark as to their content would be the American people and those with whom the Russians have not already shared the contents.

Any fair reading of Trump's remarks forces the conclusion that he wants the Russians to share what they already have with the American people.

Trade creates many losers, and rapid immigration can disrupt communities. But the best way to address these problems is not to throw up barriers. It is to devise bold policies that preserve the benefits of openness while alleviating its sideeffects.Let goods and investment flow freely, but strengthen the social safetynet to offer support and new opportunities for those whose jobs are destroyed.

In other words, the editorial board of The Economist wants the taxpayers to subsidize employers whose employees' jobs are "destroyed" by trade which enriches outsourcers and, admittedly, consumers. Why should the taxpayer bear the cost of social dislocation caused by international trade? Why should one group of players in our economy be favored over a different group? More than favored, their very activity is sanctioned and even made possible by government treaty and should even be underwritten, according to The Economist, with taxpayer subsidies.

Trump has drawn this system into the political process where it belongs. Rather than have elitists decide the fate of millions of Americans this election is about having millions of Americans decide their own fate as the Brits had just done.

The article deplores the potential breakup of a system of collective security (NATO) and the potential breakup of the European experiment (EU), and the potential breakup of a world trade system. The arguments remind one of our Progressives who insist against all reason that "diversity is our strength." I suggest they reread the history of the Habsburg Empire and the Roman Empire if they were have a teachable moment.

The Economist should be forthright enough to admit that England withdrew from the European Union because of unrestrained immigration which triggered the reaction and made starkly clear that the average Brit had lost control of his destiny as he lost control of his sovereignty. When Angela Merkel opened the flood gates to Muslim refugees and invited all world to live in Germany she was inviting the whole world, regardless of culture, language, religion, adherence to the rule of law, or bad intentions to live in the whole of the European Union. Her action made clear that England, the Mother of Parliaments, had lost control over its own affairs to foreign leaders like the Chancellor of Germany and, equally, to foreigners who increasingly operated as an elite Super Parliament.

The elitism is inevitable in a system which picks winners over losers as The Economist advocates be done as noted above. The further the legislature is removed from the people, the more remote, the more elitist, the more arbitrary, the more it resembles Parliament in 1776.

It is ironic that the article assumes that Hillary will protect trade and, therefore, enact TPP when she and all four candidates for the presidency, Trump, Clinton, Sanders and Cruz, all had abandoned TPP by the end. Those who early on raised objections to the fast-track approach, like Mark Levin, did so because they objected to what they regarded to be and unconstitutional approach by passing the two thirds Senate confirmation clause. The agreement itself would undermine American sovereignty and replicates in a sense the elitism which is destroying the European Union.

It is the Trump's credit that he, combined with Sanders, dramatized the issue and forced Clinton to reverse her position.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.