Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Why AOC and the U.S. Left Look America Last-y
Why resist verification?
One of the more eye-opening moments of my decades of working on U.S. trade policy came during a meeting of trade policy critics held at some point in the early 2000s at AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington, D.C. And it bears heavily on many of the foreign policy debates underway nowadays around the nation, and in particular during an election year. Let me explain.
The attendees at that meeting fully reflected the “strange bedfellows” coalition of left-of-center and right-of-center groups that had emerged over the previous decade to oppose the American globalization strategy kicked off with negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
The purpose of the meeting made eminent sense. Our organizations had attacked this and succeeding trade deals on all sorts of grounds. But didn’t policymakers and the public deserve to know what we were for?
The AFL official who was chairing the meeting submitted a draft of a manifesto for our consideration, and it began – quite reasonably, I thought – with a statement on the order of “The overriding objective of U.S. trade policy should be to raise the living standards of the American people.”
And that’s when my eyes began opening – widely. Because immediately, representatives of the left-of-center groups like Oxam International and the Maryknoll sisters jumped in and demanded, (I’m paraphrasing again here) “What’s with this focus on the United States? What about the rest of the world?”
For arguments by such organizations that had been implicit for quite some time had become explicit: The trade policy made by the U.S. government had no business prioritizing the interests of Americans. Global concerns – and especially the needs of developing countries – had to be taken into account. And prominently.
That’s an entirely legitimate perspective to hold. But as I observed back then, it’s a completely inappropriate and even dangerous one for public officials elected by American voters to take – unless you believe (which you shouldn’t) that hard choices in the international economic realm rarely and even never need to be made.
Interestingly, I found out that I wasn’t the only attendee holding that opinion. As the meeting broke up, I was approached by some leaders from union locals in various parts of the country who asked me what on earth was going on. Specifically, how could American trade policy focus first and foremost on anything besides Americans’ well-being (however defined – which of course can and should be debated)? And why didn’t the national leaders of their own unions who were in the room forcefully champion that view?
Fast forward to today – and to some especially revealing evidence that these beliefs that purely U.S. interests should be nothing special on the agenda of U.S. policy have spread widely on the left and through the ranks of the Democratic party. It comes in the form of remarks made by New York Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the latest edition of a leading transatlantic foreign policy gabfest – the Munich Security Conference.
“AOC” was clearly invited because she’s commonly (and rightly, in my opinion) seen as an increasingly …
Why resist verification?
One of the more eye-opening moments of my decades of working on U.S. trade policy came during a meeting of trade policy critics held at some point in the early 2000s at AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington, D.C. And it bears heavily on many of the foreign policy debates underway nowadays around the nation, and in particular during an election year. Let me explain.
The attendees at that meeting fully reflected the “strange bedfellows” coalition of left-of-center and right-of-center groups that had emerged over the previous decade to oppose the American globalization strategy kicked off with negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
The purpose of the meeting made eminent sense. Our organizations had attacked this and succeeding trade deals on all sorts of grounds. But didn’t policymakers and the public deserve to know what we were for?
The AFL official who was chairing the meeting submitted a draft of a manifesto for our consideration, and it began – quite reasonably, I thought – with a statement on the order of “The overriding objective of U.S. trade policy should be to raise the living standards of the American people.”
And that’s when my eyes began opening – widely. Because immediately, representatives of the left-of-center groups like Oxam International and the Maryknoll sisters jumped in and demanded, (I’m paraphrasing again here) “What’s with this focus on the United States? What about the rest of the world?”
For arguments by such organizations that had been implicit for quite some time had become explicit: The trade policy made by the U.S. government had no business prioritizing the interests of Americans. Global concerns – and especially the needs of developing countries – had to be taken into account. And prominently.
That’s an entirely legitimate perspective to hold. But as I observed back then, it’s a completely inappropriate and even dangerous one for public officials elected by American voters to take – unless you believe (which you shouldn’t) that hard choices in the international economic realm rarely and even never need to be made.
Interestingly, I found out that I wasn’t the only attendee holding that opinion. As the meeting broke up, I was approached by some leaders from union locals in various parts of the country who asked me what on earth was going on. Specifically, how could American trade policy focus first and foremost on anything besides Americans’ well-being (however defined – which of course can and should be debated)? And why didn’t the national leaders of their own unions who were in the room forcefully champion that view?
Fast forward to today – and to some especially revealing evidence that these beliefs that purely U.S. interests should be nothing special on the agenda of U.S. policy have spread widely on the left and through the ranks of the Democratic party. It comes in the form of remarks made by New York Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the latest edition of a leading transatlantic foreign policy gabfest – the Munich Security Conference.
“AOC” was clearly invited because she’s commonly (and rightly, in my opinion) seen as an increasingly …
Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Why AOC and the U.S. Left Look America Last-y
Why resist verification?
One of the more eye-opening moments of my decades of working on U.S. trade policy came during a meeting of trade policy critics held at some point in the early 2000s at AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington, D.C. And it bears heavily on many of the foreign policy debates underway nowadays around the nation, and in particular during an election year. Let me explain.
The attendees at that meeting fully reflected the “strange bedfellows” coalition of left-of-center and right-of-center groups that had emerged over the previous decade to oppose the American globalization strategy kicked off with negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
The purpose of the meeting made eminent sense. Our organizations had attacked this and succeeding trade deals on all sorts of grounds. But didn’t policymakers and the public deserve to know what we were for?
The AFL official who was chairing the meeting submitted a draft of a manifesto for our consideration, and it began – quite reasonably, I thought – with a statement on the order of “The overriding objective of U.S. trade policy should be to raise the living standards of the American people.”
And that’s when my eyes began opening – widely. Because immediately, representatives of the left-of-center groups like Oxam International and the Maryknoll sisters jumped in and demanded, (I’m paraphrasing again here) “What’s with this focus on the United States? What about the rest of the world?”
For arguments by such organizations that had been implicit for quite some time had become explicit: The trade policy made by the U.S. government had no business prioritizing the interests of Americans. Global concerns – and especially the needs of developing countries – had to be taken into account. And prominently.
That’s an entirely legitimate perspective to hold. But as I observed back then, it’s a completely inappropriate and even dangerous one for public officials elected by American voters to take – unless you believe (which you shouldn’t) that hard choices in the international economic realm rarely and even never need to be made.
Interestingly, I found out that I wasn’t the only attendee holding that opinion. As the meeting broke up, I was approached by some leaders from union locals in various parts of the country who asked me what on earth was going on. Specifically, how could American trade policy focus first and foremost on anything besides Americans’ well-being (however defined – which of course can and should be debated)? And why didn’t the national leaders of their own unions who were in the room forcefully champion that view?
Fast forward to today – and to some especially revealing evidence that these beliefs that purely U.S. interests should be nothing special on the agenda of U.S. policy have spread widely on the left and through the ranks of the Democratic party. It comes in the form of remarks made by New York Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the latest edition of a leading transatlantic foreign policy gabfest – the Munich Security Conference.
“AOC” was clearly invited because she’s commonly (and rightly, in my opinion) seen as an increasingly …
0 Comments
0 Shares
38 Views
0 Reviews
