Patrick J. Buchanan Examines "The Slow Awakening of George W."

Washington Times ^ | 09-17-03 | Buchanan, Patrick J.

[Theodore R.]

The slow awakening of George W.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: September 17, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Last July, U.S. Trade Representative Bob Zoellick delivered a halftime pep talk to dispirited globalists, thrown on the defensive by the hemorrhaging of U.S. manufacturing jobs.

"What ... a surprise," Zoellick railed at his troops, "to see that the proponents of [free trade] ... have so often abandoned the debate to the economic isolationists and purveyors of fright and retreat."

But by September, Zoellick's own boss seemed to be drifting toward the camp of the "economic isolationists and purveyors of fright."

At a rally in Ohio, which has lost 160,000 manufacturing jobs since mid-2000, President Bush railed: "We've lost thousands of manufacturing jobs because production moved overseas. ... America must send a message overseas – say, look, we expect there to be a fair playing field when it comes to trade."

Yes, friends, at long last, we have their attention.

What's behind this radically revised presidential rhetoric? It is this: U.S. manufacturing jobs are vanishing, and unless he turns it around, Bush's presidency may vanish along with them.

The numbers are breathtaking. Manufacturing jobs have been disappearing for 37 straight months. Not since the Depression have we lost production jobs three years in a row. Since 2000, one in every six manufacturing jobs, 2.7 million, has disappeared. These jobs paid an average wage of $54,000.

Unfortunately for President Bush, while he has a good heart, he was horribly miseducated at Harvard. He simply cannot comprehend that it is free-trade globalism that is destroying U.S. manufacturing jobs, and may yet destroy his presidency.

The serial killer of manufacturing jobs is imports, which are now equal to almost 15 percent of GDP, four times the level they held between 1860 and 1960. What has caused this flood of imports? The trade deals that people like Robert Zoellick negotiate and George W. Bush celebrates.

Consider the numbers.

In July alone, the United States exported $86.1 billion in goods and services. But we imported $126.5 billion, for a trade deficit of $40.4 billion. The total trade deficit for 2003 is estimated at between $480 billion and $500 billion. But the deficit in goods will run closer to $550 billion.

The president's father and Bill Clinton contended that every $1 billion in exports created 20,000 jobs. Thus, a $550 billion trade deficit kills 11 million production and manufacturing jobs.

Say goodbye to blue-collar America.

What is the Bush prescription for curing this metastasizing cancer? In Ohio, he declared, "See, we in America believe we can compete with anybody, just so long as the rules are fair, and we intend to keep the rules fair."

How, Mr. President?

Consider the nation that runs the largest trade surplus with us. In July, we bought $13.4 billion in goods from China and sold China $2.1 billion. U.S. imports from China this year should come in around $160 billion, and U.S. exports to China at $25 billion.

We will thus buy 10 percent of the entire GDP of China, while she buys 0.25 percent of the GDP of the United States. Is this "fair trade"? But how does Bush propose to close this exploding deficit? How can he?

Where a U.S. manufacturing worker may cost $53,000 a year, a factory in China – with $53,000 and using the same machinery and technology as a U.S. factory – can employ 25 reliable, intelligent, hardworking Chinese at $1 an hour.

If you force U.S. businessmen to pay kids who sweep the floor a $5-an-hour minimum wage, while their rivals pay highly skilled Chinese workers $1 an hour, how do you square that with the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws?

Does the president, when he goes on about keeping "the rules fair," mean he will insist that China start paying its skilled workers $25 an hour and subject their factories to the same payroll taxes, wage-and-hour laws, OSHA inspections and environmental rules as ours?

Beijing will tell him to go fly a kite, Made in China.

It is absurd to think we can force foreign nations to accept U.S. rules and regulations on production and American standards on wages and benefits. And why should foreign nations comply, when – with their present policies and laws – they are looting our industrial base and walking away with our inheritance?

The men who have custody today of what was once the most awesome manufacturing base the world had ever seen are ideologues, impervious to argument or evidence. Like the socialists of Eastern Europe, zealots like Zoellick are beyond retraining. They are uneducable. They have to go. The sooner they do, the sooner we can get about rebuilding the self-sufficient and sovereign America they gave away.

[JNB]

As someone who is a victim, and I will not use language any weaker than that, of forced busing, I saw the other side of the coin. Growing up in California, I saw the worst of idenity polityics and affirmative action, and how affirmative action has become de facto political patronage in the name of noble goals. What is even worse is I am being penalised for somthing my grandparents, who grew up as the children of working class/poor Italian and Jewish immigrants than faced harsh discrimination themselves, never did.

No sane person advocates the elimination of the voting rights amendment that abolished the poll tax, but the other issues such as affirmative action, quotas, multi culturalism are a cancer on society. That is what most social conservatives want undone. Libertarians would be the first ironiclaly to do away with all civil rights laws, and go much further than social conservatives in this regaurd. Also you said you want to get rid of Great Society era laws, well immigration "reform" and the civil rights acts were two big centerpeices.

This is not about the Howard Stern show or what magazines you read, this is about how social conservatives are sick of the multi cultural agenda being shoved down their throats non stop, and it doesnt matter if this agenda is being pushed by pro big business neo-cons are elite University and media liberals.

To be very blunt, "conservatives" like you are very much so a tiny minority, as I said in another thread, there are far more conservatives in the Rep. Ralph Hall mold than the Dick Armey mold, and the GOP better keep that in mind, lest it goes back to being a better than 2-1 minority in elected positions. The culture of America, what definese who we are as a people is far more important than a tax cut in the long run, because as teh culture gets further degraded, so will the economy of the US get further degraded too as people lose even more concepts of personal responsibility. Do not be surprised when a people with no concept on personal responibility turn on the very business' and very businessmen who feel they have no responsibility to their fellow citizens and only to their pocketbooks by electing those who would eliminate more economic freedomes than ever before.

[JNB]

How did the states blow the abortion issue? Roe v. Wade was the result of a activistic supreme court trampleing on states rights. Abortion is not in the constituion, and should fall under the 10th amendment.

[rdb3]

How did the states blow the abortion issue?

I wasn't talking about abortion.

[JNB]

Yes the Southren States screwed up with civil rights, but sadly the solutions imposed by the Brennan era court, such as forced busing, affirmative action and quotas were equally as vile and disgusting. The poll tax was indeed a abomination that denied the voting rights of blacks and the poor, and the same with forced segregation at public facilities, but again as someone who saw the "solutions" imposed by the courts in a state far away from the South, all I can say is injsutice does not solve injustice.

Also another point, is that blacks were getting ready to take the step on the economic ladder uin the eraly 60s that Catholics and Jews had taken, but a combination of great society programs that broke apart the family in the inner city and unfair trade practices by Japan starting in the 70s that took away the jobs that have in the past that were a vital step up the economic ladder devastated the inner city, along with forced busing that caused entire cities to lose their middle class tax base.

[rdb3]

Yes the Southren States screwed up with civil rights...

Yes they did, badly. I ain't the one to grant a mulligan, either.

[JNB]

Does what the Southren States did justify the trashing of the constituion by the Brennan era courts? Does what the south did justify discrimination to gain equality?

[rdb3]

Does what the Southren States did justify the trashing of the constituion by the Brennan era courts?

Not at all. But the southern states trashed the Constitution regarding black people.

Does what the south did justify discrimination to gain equality?

Nope. And I definitely don't justify discrimination for or against any American. But wanting to "go back" to an era like that I can't support.

[JNB]

Again, no one sane wants to go back to forced segregation, but at the same time, one key isue of social conservatives is the elimination of any quota, affirmative action and forced busing. What the south did was a abomination, what the courts imposed on the entire US because of the South is also a abomination.

My grandparents themselves faced discrimination, by being Jews and Italians, there were hotels that did not allow Jews to stay there, companies that would not hire Italians and neighborhoods that restricted both Jews and Italians from moving in, and this was well into the 50s. But disgustingly in the name of civil rights, liberals have trashed the constituion, trashed the culture in the name of multi culturalism and the results are a culture in decline, a cultue that now has gulag level numbers in the orison system, a culture where in many neighborhoods, people are scared to go out of the door. Again, degrade the culture, the concept of personal responsibility falls away, morals fall away, and without morals and personal responsibility, Capitalism can not function for long without a increasing numbers of laws and regulations being imposed.

[harpseal]

Hey Dawg

I am still waiting for some evidence of the correctness of your views that tariffs harm the USA. You are quick to spout off one liners but have yet to come through with an analysis of both sides of the issue.

All talk no walk seems to be your motto.

[rdb3]

Again, no one sane wants to go back to forced segregation...

With some folks around here, that's not a given.

[Texas_Dawg]

I am still waiting for some evidence of the correctness of your views that tariffs harm the USA. You are quick to spout off one liners but have yet to come through with an analysis of both sides of the issue. All talk no walk seems to be your motto.

1) I gave you a thorough study showing the jobs the 2002 steel tariffs cost (which are more than even their wildest proponents claim they created).

2) Do tariffs raise the prices on goods? (If not, why do you need them?)

[hchutch]

I had ancestors who had to flee TWO states due to mob violence fueled by relgious intolerance. The governor of one of those states even signed an unconstiuttional extermination order.

What you went through pales in comparison to what my ancestors did.

The Great Societly laws I want gone are the entitlements. The Civil Rights laws ought to remain, and on immigration, I favor the WSJ position. Most of the 1968 Gun Control Act can be tossed as well.

[PRND21]

Bump for truth minus the DH abomination.

[JNB]

The laws on voting rights of course are in the constituion, but affirmative action should be scarpped. As for immigration, I lived in CA for most my life and I saw first hand the negative impact it had there. The WSJ position is a joke, but hey, all they care about is $$$$.

[JNB]

Truth? The state of CA is testament to the mess this nation has become on the issue of globalisation.

[PRND21]

The truth is my property value is zooming and the weather is perfect.

[ninenot]

Most of the 1968 Gun Control Act can be tossed as well.

Talk about lily-livered "conservatives!!!"

Let's get rid of the 1934 National Firearms Act. Why screw around with the little stuff?

[Barnacle]

For practical purposes, the USA has never really had a trade policy and the Harvard/Wharton 30-somethings we've sent to Japan (e.g.) to negotiate trade agreements have NO KNOWLEDGE OF TRADE AGREEMENT HISTORY

Sort of like having McNamara run the Vietnam War, right?

The idiot MBA's bought it each time, and of course, returned an American concession.

I’ve concluded that MBAs are the root of American's business problems. It is an over-rated and flawed concept. They’ re in control and they’re going to drive the bus into a ditch.

Best FRegards to you ninenot.

[searchandrecovery]

1) I gave you a thorough study showing the jobs the 2002 steel tariffs cost (which are more than even their wildest proponents claim they created). 2) Do tariffs raise the prices on goods? (If not, why do you need them?)

Hey, Texas_Dawg actually wrote something seemingly non-troll.

Wasn't the dog outed as a Chinaman in recent threads? Confucius say: Sometimes a dog from Texas actually be a poster from China.

[The Duke]

When Ronald Reagan was elected the Republican establishment held their collective noses. When George W. was elected they applauded.

There's a reason.