Opposition to the TPP spans the entire Democratic base

[brentspeak]

You may have seen a couple of shills running around the forums spamming dubious polls which purport to show that Democrats in general support TPP. Most of these polls were cooked up by pro-free-trade groups such as Pew Research, the Economist/YouGov polling service, and a PR firm which was hired by the manufactured pro-TPP astroturf group, "The Progressive Coalition for American Jobs".

But for those Democrats who actually have heard about TPP and are familiar with it...

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/13/trans-pacific-partnership-fast-track-defeat-now-what

TPP defeat: Why labor movement's war against fast track may not be over

snip

The anti-fast track coalition was immense – labor was at its heart, and it included environmental, faith, immigrant and food safety groups. The coalition spanned the Democratic base, including 2,000 groups, among them the American Civil Liberties Union, Consumers Union, the Electric Frontier Foundation, Friends of the Earth and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

“This is the first time Congress considered a trade deal since we as a country became much more cognizant of surging inequality and the crisis in middle-class jobs,” said Joseph McCartin, a labor historian at Georgetown University. “The old playbook of the president being able to get the votes at the last minute doesn’t seem to apply anymore.”

[Zorra]

1. We should not expect leaders whose election was paid for by wealthy

private interests to enforce the will of the people when the will of the people conflicts with the desires of wealthy private interests.

The candidacy of Bernie Sanders is our rare chance to elect a POTUS who will enforce the will of the people, and not the will of the corporations.

[Betty Karlson]

13. From what I hear, Mrs. Clinton is pondering one of her trademark "changes of heart".

Make of that what you will, but it is a testament to the vehemence of Democratic base opposition to this monstrous Pact.

[PatrickforO]

2. Michael Bennet is my US Senator, and

he's been sending me emails asking for donations and to volunteer for his campaign.

However, I have replied by asking why he was one of just a few Democratic Senators to vote yes on fast tracking the TPP. In fact, I said, unless he does a U-turn and opposes the TPP, I not only will not vote for him or work for his campaign, but will actively help the state Democratic party find someone more progressive to run in his place.

[Enthusiast]

3. +1 a huge bunch!

[Populist_Prole]

6. Way to go!

It's too late for damage control on the part of the traitors who turned their backs on their constituents and voted with the plutocrats.

These people keep thinking of politics in the abstract, as if it were a math equation and everything's fine as long as the final numbers add up to whatever total they seek. They can't be pro-TPP and then say "Oh, but I do fight for these other good things....". It doesn't work like that. If you do something as bad as shit on the working class' economic vitality, you can't make up for it in other ways.

Third-Wayers not only have a tendency to forget this, some actually live that dynamic.

[PatrickforO]

8. yeah, that's why I have been so disappointed in Obama lately

I was barely OK with the ACA, which I (rightly, I think) viewed as a giant government welfare program for insurance companies - EVERYBODY knew in 2009 that if we went to Medicare for all Americans, we'd be much better off because we'd be simply expanding an already extant infrastructure...but NO.....

And now TPP?

What is he thinking???

[Populist_Prole]

11. He's thinking like the technocrat he his

Hence, the triangulation.

[davidpdx]

16. I pledge to do the same thing for Ron Wyden in Oregon

He voted for it the first time around and better vote against it this time or he's going to draw a strong primary opponent and I will support the person.

I'm already out for blood with my US Rep and have pledged to do everything I can to help support a primary opponent.

Let's defeat the TPP......

[Enthusiast]

4. K&R! This post deserves hundreds of recommendations!

[raindaddy]

5. K&R

You can't support the middle class and the TPP... And if the foundation of the Democratic party is still protecting the welfare of the middle class and poor we should be able to expect our reps to fight it..

[pampango]

18. "You can't support the middle class and the TPP." FDR supported the middle class and the ITO.

Sweden and Germany, among many other progressive countries, belong to the "free trade" EU and they support their middle classes just fine. Trade and trade agreements do not destroy the middle class. At least FDR and Truman did not think so back in the day. And Germany and Sweden do not seem to think so today.

[raindaddy]

19. Only a small portion of the TPP is a trade agreement..

There are aspects of the TPP that will continue to remain secret five years after it's signed and there are reasons for that. Neither FDR, Truman or Eisenhower for that matter would be pushing a secret bill that hands global corporations the power to undermine, local, state and federal laws that protect consumers!

[Jack Rabbit]

7. Thank you

It is simply dishonest to accuse Democrats of disloyalty for opposing free trade legislation simply because a Democratic President supports it. Free trade has brought nothing but grief to working Americans for twenty years. President Obama has isolated himself from his own party and has no one to blame but himself. In 2008, he promised to "fix NAFTA" if elected. Putting NAFTA on steroids is not how one fixes it, and most of the people I know who voted for Obama thought he meant something else.

[WillyT]

9. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[Sancho]

10. From what we know of the TPP, Democrats are certainly opposed to some PARTS of it...

Of course, parts were leaked, and maybe there are parts that are not public.

As I understand it, just about all Democrats are against the idea of corporate kangaroo courts superseding US laws - particularly ones that protect the US from dangerous products, reduce labeling, etc. Some other countries also are against this idea as I hear it.

As I understand it, most Democrats probably are not against protection for intellectual property - so foreign companies could not steal ideas, music, etc.. Actually, I suspect that TPP or not, theft of intellectual property is going to continue.

As I understand it, the TPP does not address currency manipulations as far as we know, but most Democrats would like that addressed. The biggest culprit is not part of the TPP - China.

As I understand it, Democrats would support provision that force countries to reduce or eliminate "slave" labor, child labor, or similar worker protections. That may include the right to organize which is almost illegal in some other countries. The US track record lately has not been pro-labor in my opinion, even though unions still survive for the moment.

Of course, you can see that other countries might see the US as the worst offender as far as stealing stuff (resources, intellectual property), and also US companies have certainly used various "world courts" to defeat local laws - like take countries to court over cancer warning labels on cigarettes.

Regardless, "fast track" is certainly a bad idea when we can't trust the negotiators, and I'm really surprised it continues to pass through Congress. Maybe this is the beginning of the end to "fast track". I hope so.

Here's an earlier post with a link to the Diane Rhem Show on the TPP last week:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026845830

[eridani]

12. Given that environmental and labor protections in previous "trade" deals have been useless--

--why would we expect TPP to be any different?

[Art_from_Ark]

14. Worse than useless

http://action.sierraclub.org/site/DocServer/0642_NAFTA_Report_05_web_high.pdf?docID=15301

[eridani]

20. Excellent reference. Make it an OP? n/t

[Art_from_Ark]

21. I will seriously consider making this an OP

Thanks for the suggestion

[Scuba]

15. Other than a couple of DU members, I can't find anyone in the US who supports it.

[pampango]

17. And yet it seems difficult to find a poll that agrees with that view while there are many that show

just the opposite.

Despite the fact that the polls from Pew, YouGov and others show results consistent with those sponsored by the Communications Workers of America and the AFL-CIO, it seems like every poll that comes out just adds one more polling organization to the list of "pro-free trade", 'pro-globalization' shill groups. There does not seem to be a list of polling organizations that we should trust because none seem to publish results that you like.

I realize that it is quite easy to 'shoot the messenger' and attack the character of every polling organization which produces results one does not like. All the polls show huge republican, independent and overall majority opposition to 'free trade', NAFTA, TPP and TPA. And Democratic support for them. If the 'pro-free trade' folks cannot get polls ("cooked up by pro-free trade groups&quot to do a better job than that, why are you complaining? Be happy that these 'biased', 'manufactured' polls show that the public supports your opposition to TPA and TPP with the "minor" exception of the opinion of the Democratic base.

Just look at the Democratic base as a group that may just be 'mindless liberal cheerleaders' for Obama, perhaps living in the pro-trade agreement past of FDR and Truman or perhaps just ignorant of the details. Be happy that even polls 'manufactured' by 'pro-free trade' groups show that the American public agrees with your opposition to 'free trade'. That's not a bad poll result from your perspective. Accept that the majority of Americans agree with you and move on.

[rolling_code]

23. I found the Pew Research poll question a loaded question.

The actual question was customized (see parentheses below) for the polled country, so no two countries saw exactly the same question:

US citizens responded to this question:

"Q20a: (The USA) is negotiating a free-trade agreement with (countries in the Asian-Pacific region) called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Do you think this trade agreement would be a good thing for our country or a bad thing?"

The USA responded with 49% good thing, 29% bad thing, 12% haven't heard enough, 1% neither good or bad and 9% don't know/refused to answer.

Given that the person answering the question is extremely unlikely to have access to the TPP text (the Obama administration limits access to Congress/corporate negotiators/government negotiators, so perhaps a few thousand individuals in the USA have TPP text access, and likely a smaller percentage of these people have read and understood the TPP and its provisions) the person responding might be influenced by the "free trade" characterization in the statement or media editorial support.

The Pew question itself subsequently referred to the TPP as "this trade agreement", so why add the "free-trade" value characterization at the beginning of the question?

That such a small percentage of people responded with "haven't heard enough", "Don't know, refuse to answer" may be an indication that the US media is able to influence people to support agreements they can't possibly know/understand.

One wonders how the same individuals would have responded to the question phrased this way:

"Q20a: The USA is negotiating a, secret from the broad general public, tariff/intellectual property/investor protection agreement with countries in the Asian-Pacific region called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Do you think this agreement would be a good thing for our country or a bad thing?"

And the American population has been media bombarded with "free-trade" is win-win for the country, when the godfather of free-trade, David Ricardo, assumed labor is ALWAYS fully employed and labor can be reallocated costlessly between industries WITHIN a country but cannot move between countries. Ricardo did not plan for capital moving across borders (such as manufacturing plants relocating overseas)

From the leaked information on the TPP I've read about, characterizing it as a "free-trade" agreement in the Pew question is dishonest.

[jazzimov]

22. Uh, no, it doesn't.

We don't even know what's in it, yet. Sure, the process is open to certain Congresspeople, but not to us.

Why? So we don't get opposition or support on something that may change in negotiations.