Lou Dobbs needs to be educated about Progressive Democrats

[Armstead]

(This is not meant to pick at the scab of the Ohio primary. It's simply an example of what Dobbs is missing in his understanding.)

Lou Dobbs has been doing a surprisingly good job in exposing the underlying mess that the UnHoly Alliance of Corporate America and the Political Establishment have created.

He's been exposing the scam of "free trade" with amazing vehemence, and sounding almost like a real progressive on the subject. His latest mantra is an excellent one, that too often "Commercial Interests have been placed above the National Interest."

However, being a Republican libertarian, he is missing an important piece. He tends to lump all Democratic and Republican politicians together in his tirades about how it is a bi-partisan problem. He is correct that too many "centrist" Democrats have been on the same corrupt train as the Republicans, by supporting phony "free trade" policies and corporate abuse that have sold this country out.

BUT, he fails to give credit to all of the progressive Democrats who HAVE BEEN FIGHTING against it for many years. Many Democrats -- from proghessives like Kucinich to such liberal Democratic Establishment figures as Dick Gephardt -- WERE fighting the battle to slow down the train of "fast track" Corporate Globalization from the beginning. There was a block of liberals and progressives in Congress who WERE saying what Dobbs is saying now back in the 90's, when Dobbs was a cheerleader for the "corporate globalization" policies and values that he is now attacking.

It's good that Lou Dobbs is now championing the same cause. But he has to be made aware that there are many in Congress that were fighting this for years, and deserve his support -- not to be lumped in with the apologists for corporate globalization. It's important politically, because he has to identify to himself and his viewers the politicians and the progressive political movement that has been working hard for many years to defend the embattled middle class and challenging the entrenchment of corporate excess and abuse.

His political myopia was revealed last night in one of his bombastic little asides.

He was reporting on how "free trade" agreements often put commercial interests above the national interest, and pointed out that the port controversy is the latest example. He showed a report on how in the wake of the controversy over the port deal, some in Congress are now scurrying to include national security concerns in reviews of foreign trade deals.

The report focused on a bill that Cong. Sherrod Brown is sponsoring that would require more stringent consideration of security issues in trade agreements. However, after the report Dobbs said that such concern is long overdue and that Congress had voluntarily abdicated its responsibilities in the past by passing "fast track" authority.

He thus incorrectly painted Brown's proposal as another example of a cynical politician pandering to the public's concern about the ports.

He is correct in a broad sense. HOWEVER, he failed to note that not everyone in Congress is guilty of this. He ignored he ignored the fact that Brown and many other Democrats DID fight against "fast track" and the who framework of WTO/NAFTA/CAFTA/CORPORATE GLOBALIZATION.

A casual viewer watching would think that Sherrod Brown was just some hack who just jumped on the bandwagon to score political points after years of supporting Corporate "free trade." The truth, however, is just the opposite. Brown has been fighting this fight since the days when Lou Dobbs was among the chief cheerleaders for Corporate Globalization.



We should send him polite but informative e-mails about this, to point it out and encourage him to give credit where credit is due.

[ClassWarrior]

1. Excellent point. Dobbs seems (relatively) reasonable...

...and sometimes people just need something pointed out for it to stick. I think I'll email him as well.

16-5.

NGU.

[Armstead]

9. Thanks

I think it is important to engage these people, instead of just complaining about the corporate media as if it were one single entity.

The biggest problem, we face is overcoming the cynicism of the "They're all alike" mantra, regarding politics. When the media portrays every political issue as a monolithic contest between two sports teams "The Republicans and the Democrats," it helps to obscure the differences between the patries and within the parties.

It also makes it more difficult for people to appreciate and recognize that there is a movement of progressives and liberals -- both within and without the Democratic party -- who ARE different.

That's especially important when there is someone like Dobbs who actually starts to deal with the real issues and has taken similar positions on matyters of corporate values and power and "free trade."

If he would start making the distinction in political terms by at least pointing out that there are politicians and a political movement that deals directly with these matters, it could help to make the larger public aware of what liberals and progressives really do stand for...And that could translate into votes down the line.

[ClassWarrior]

10. You make much sense my friend.

And that's my one source of hope - the fact that these heartless corporate monoliths have been infiltrated. By human beings.

Peace.

16-5.

NGU.

[Armstead]

11. That's an important point about human infiltration

Corporations are run by people. If more of them act like human beings, that would help to resolve these problems.

[meisje]

2. rolls

:eyes:

[Armstead]

3. And why the eye roll?

If you want to criticize the post, at least criticize, not just toss out some ad-hominum little aside.

[Armstead]

8. No reply? Seriously if you object, I'd like to know why

I'll be civil, I promise.

[mzmolly]

14. doughnuts

:donut:

[WCGreen]

4. Good post....

Recommended....

[Armstead]

5. Thanks -- Things like this are important politically

If people like Dobbs have decided that "enough is enough" they need to realize that there are many on the so-called "left" who have been on this side of things for a long time.

It's one way to make the liberal and progressive position become mainstream politically again.

[Telly Savalas]

18. But Dobbs is just Archie Bunker recycled.

His views about things like outsourcing aren't based on any support for working people. Rather his nativism and disdain for all things non-American runs so deep it's inevitable that his "Murka First" attitude will trump his otherwise laissez faire economic outlook. Dobbs and his idolaters aren't willing to take the next step and support a complete progressive economic program (universal health care, living wage, progressive taxation, etc.), otherwise they would have at least hinted at it a long time ago.

If Dobbs convinces some people to stop voting for Republicans, that's great, but I don't want right-wing flakes like him having any influence in the Democratic party.

Also be prepared for major seismic activity in about March 2009, when the earth shakes from everybody jumping off the Dobbs bandwagon because he's attacking the new Democratic president with 10 times the intensity he's had with Bush.

[eridani]

22. Conservative populists want what we want on this issue

Granted, they get to that point out of xenophobia, and we get to it out of human solidarity, but both factions are against the policy!

[Armstead]

24. Bingo

[Telly Savalas]

28. But they don't.

When Dobbs and his ilk whine about call-center jobs being exported to India, he fails to point out that these are really shitty low paying jobs with minimal benefits and no health insurance. Dobbs thumps his chest about how companies should adopt a "Murka First" policy and keep the shitty jobs here, but never seems to say anything about improving the quality of life for Americans who do hold such jobs. So it's not really clear that the goals are the same here.

[Armstead]

29. Are you waiting for some kind of Socialist Savior or something?

Jeeze what's good enough for you?

Whether you agree with his politics or not, the plain fact is that Dobbs is addressing the sdame issues that progressives are, and which most mainstream media and politicians prefer to ignore.

The fact that he is a Repubnlican and conservative and nationalist makes him unqualified to have a similar opinion on certain issues as liberals and progressives?

Ever hear of the Big Tent? If people have to fit your personal ideological template exactly for you to see any common interests, you're going to have a looooong wait.

My original post was not a call to convert Lou Dobbs to become a progressive. It is a matter of every little bit we can do that might increase public awareness of these issues -- and the positions of progressives on them -- helps.

[Armstead]

25. You miss my point

I didn't say the Democrats should hire Lou Dobbs to become the official Democratic spokesman.

But in his role as a media figure, who is actually addressing the issues imnportant to progressives and workers, there is nothing to lose by at least getting him to take the next step and give credit where credit is due, in terms of acknowledging that there are many Democrats who have been fighting on these issues too.

It's one small pebble in a big lake, but read the artricle on the front page of DU about the mutualk interaction of the timidity of the Democrats and the Media. This is one example of how we can break that cycle.

[Telly Savalas]

27. But if he was interested in giving credit where it's due...

he would have done so a long time ago. The fact of the matter is he isn't. Dobbs is mainly concerned with self-aggrandization and pushing his Know-Nothing agenda. Acknowledging the efforts of liberals doesn't help with either of these.

To the extent that media figures influence public opinion, Dobbs takes folks who care about the labor issues, holds their hand, and tries to steer them down a right-wing path. One could make the case that this makes him more dangerous than Sean Hannity.

For Dobbs, issues like outsourcing and illegal immigration aren't progressive issues, they're nativist ones, and by encouraging the guy we're only hurting ourselves in the long run.

[Doctor_J]

6. I don't think you can educate a Repub of Dobbs' age

he has to know that this fight has been going on forever. He's just trying to spread the blame around, and especially off of *, whom he still supports.

[Armstead]

7. He's already changed his stripes

He has changed his basic stance almost 180 degrees in the last couple of years.

So it is not really asking too much to think that he could at least become more aware that there has been a progressive movement that has been dealing with this for years.

[Kolesar]

17. Lou's in a network who does not research stories well

And that is as polite as I could put it. It is likely that their staff don't give a squat about reading up on Democrats. All they know are talking points and WSJ and NYTimes editorials.

[Armstead]

26. That's why we should help them, with their homework

[Telly Savalas]

19. He was throwing blame at the "Black Power Structure" in NOLA

after Katrina.

He may not like Bush anymore, be he's still a right-wing nut.

[CTyankee]

12. ALSO, he called a female colleague "honey"

with a smirk, just a few nights ago. She was the news reader and he was charging in on the port thing. I was cheering him on, but then he finished with a statement and said "honey." She looked like she was ready to hit him. I was bitterly disappointed in Dobbs for that.

[mzmolly]

13. K and R.

Great idea/post.

[bvar22]

15. Agree, and I'm glad you brought this up.

I'm not sure, but I believe that it was in this same broadcast that the FAILED Iraq War was mentioned as a campaign issue.
I believe that Lou said "But what can the Democrats do? They voted for the War too!"

BULLSHIT!!!
This MYTH MUST be confronted every time you hear it!

SOME Democrats voted to go along with the President, but over 100 (145?) VOTED against the IWR!!!

This IS a REPUBLICAN War. The Republican Party AS A PARTY is responsible for the FAILED policies and president that produced the spectacular failure in Iraq.

[Telly Savalas]

20. Too lazy to dig up the links

But in the Senate about 40% or so of the Democratic caucus voted against the IWR. In the House it was a solid majority of Democrats who voted against it.

Taken collectively, more than half of the Democratic members of the House and Senate voted against the war.

[IsItJustMe]

16. Thought the same thing many times

Dobbs is about the only program I watch in main stream media any more.

I hear what you are saying though. I have always thought that he does it so that he would not alienate any Repukes that are watching.

I have noticed that a lot of people say things like that (They are all the same) when they want to fly beneath the Radar Screen.

In other words, "I really believe what I just said; but, please still like me".

[sandnsea]

21. He's an isolationist Republican

Pat Buchanan without the religion. That's all. He'll never say a good word about a Democrat, so quit hoping for miracles.

[Armstead]

23. Progressives need populists

Frankly, part of the problem with the modern political template is that everything has to be either A or B. There is no allowances of C or any other letter in the alphabet.

Such thinking makes it harder to challenge the status quo, and empowers the oligarchs.

I'm a liberal/progressive and I agree more with the Democrats than the Republicans. However, Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs makes a lot more sense to me on a few spwecific issues like protecting the American economy and maintaining a middle class than the Democratic Corporate Globalist Shills, who are all too happy to join the Republican Corporate Shills who are willing to sell out the US to the highest bidder.

[sandnsea]

30. That would be because

Dobbs and Buchanan don't give a shit about the poverty of those in third world countries, and this country either really. As far as they're concerned, the rest of the world can rot as long as the good ol' USofA is living high on the hog. They don't see the connection between poverty and terrorism, overseas corporations who cause the corruption in governments, dumping weapons into those countries to protect those corporations, etc. Democrats do see all those connections, and do see trade and business as the answer to raise third world nations out of poverty and increase communication and education to move towards peace. That's why you would notice that most Democrats include nonproliferation treaties, Kyoto, human rights, labor rights and all those kinds of things in the trade agreements they propose. The reason we didn't get them in the 90's was because of Republican control in Congress; from isolationists like Dobbs and Buchanan who think we should just let other countries do whatever they want, and the corporate shills like Delay.

[Armstead]

31. I'm not going to defend their xenophobia but....

I think in certain respects people likie Buchanan and Dobbs are much more in tune with certain realities thnt the Corporate Globalists, including the Democratic Globalists.

Lemme try to explain this. Bear with me.

IMO large concentrated power is bad. Although we do need larger institutions to handle certain things, in general any institution or business that gets too big and powerful and consolidated and too far from the ground-level is bad. They become cumbersome, arrogent, abusive and unable to respond to things on a human scale anymore.

It's better to be able to control our own environment as much as possible. It is bad for many reasons to cede all power to nebulous outside forces.

It is especuially destructive to democracy and the economic interests of the majority the more we put our national destiny at the mercy of the Markets Uber Alles philosophy of the Corporate Con Artists who have sold us this phony form of "free trade" and Corporate Globalization.

That is where there is an intersection between grassroots progressive populists and populists who may be more conservative. I agree with Buchanan and Dobbs that it is bad for the US (or any country) to cede its sovergnty and ability to control its destiny to large outside global corporate forces.

I part company with them in many ways. I disagree with Buchanan's social views, and I don't advocate shutting the doors, ignoring or screwing the rest of the world. We do need international trade, institutions and guidelines in many respects.

However, I do share with them a balief that it is important for nations and cultures to retain their sovergnty. Americans should be able to disagree and deal with these issues among ourselves. We can't cede our ability to set our own policies -- however liberal or conservative -- when they interfere with the flow of Global Capital markets.

[Armstead]

32. P.S. Regarding how to help the developing world....

the Corporate model of neo-liberal "free trade" is not the answer either.

By turning every nation into a colony within a global corporate One World Market, we are denying nations the opportunity to develop as well-rounded domestic economies too.

They merely become plantations and sweatshops, and their economies become unhealthily oriented towasrd exports, rather than developing domestic industries for domestic markets.

That's not to deny the opportunities of international trade. But we are making them dependent on the whims of Big Global Capital to an unhealthy extent. there's gotta be a balance.

[sandnsea]

33. There is NO intersection

They are not populists. They are protectionists, US corporate protectionists. They aren't concerned about jobs leaving the country, they're concerned about capital leaving the country and the loss of US power. They believe in the US being the global capitalist power. The jobs are just a visible indication of the loss of that power. They don't care about the jobs except to the extent that they indicate loss of US market power.

The corporatists are playing on a whole other plane. They have no country allegiance, their allegiance is to corporate power. Rather than globalize through traditional trade between peoples, they are concentrating wealth and power into the hands of a few key global players, who will then control their countries and regions, top down.

Democrats may or may not have US allegiance and most certainly a few buy into the corporate global power concept. But the key difference is that most Democrats know that top down does not ultimately work. Global trade and communication is the answer to a more harmonious and equitable planet, but it has to be bottom up. The people have to be involved in the governance, empowered economically, have local political and charitable structures for change and to deliver services, etc. The really big thing about Clinton's AIDS program for instance, isn't just the AIDS medication, it's that he's building the medical structure to deliver services. Putting the money in through the local levels, not top down.

Dobbs and Buchanan don't want immigration because they see it as putting a burden on the US capitalist system, not because they give a crap about who is working at the jobs. Typical Republicans.

It's nice Dobbs is talking about some of these problems, but he isn't doing it for the same reasons populists or Democrats are.

[Armstead]

34. Whatever....Protectionist isn't a dirty word

I think you have a misperception of the implications of the nice happy face of Globalization and Corporate Power that the Democrats also have.

The Corporate Globalists are just as bad as any Xenophone Nationalist. They want power concentrated in a Transnational Elite.

At least it is possible to argue with a Buchanan or a Dobbs if we maintain some semblence of a sovergn democracy, instead of allow ourselve to become a Corporate Colony. In the Corporate World View there is no ability for progressives and people like Buchanan to argue about these things because it is all up to the deisions of the Corporate Masters.

[sandnsea]

35. It's the SAME thing

A corporate global colony, or a corporate US colony, YOU are still at the mercy of the plantation boss. And Dobbs and Buchanan don't care. All they want is for the US to be at the top of the corporate heap and they don't see that happening if we continue to give economic power to the ME and China. It isn't about workers, it's about the people with the capital and guaranteeing that those people are always in the US.

[Armstead]

36. It's not the same thing

First, I don't think their motivations are as malevolent as you seem to think. But putting that aside, I believe we would be much better off by reasserting more control over our national destiny, and by maintaining an economy that is more controllable than the blind forces of transnational jungle ecoomics.

There are a couple of important differences between the perennial struggle to restrain US Corporations and the ceding of our economy and democracy to the forces of transnational global capital.

1)Globalization creates one set of rules that supercede all governments, and make the workings of markets uncointrollable by the people of a nation. That is infionetly more dangerous than restraining the excesses of domestic corporations, because it removes the ability to make laws and policies.

2)The scale is vastly different and the playing field is totally different. The US should not sacrifice its middle class -- and opportunity for the lower class -- simply to fatten the bottom line of the elite monority. That is what globalization does, by forcing Americans to compete with $5 a day labor, and by shipping out all of our productive capacity.

I said protectionism is not a dirty word, because it is not. Policies to protect Americans from the "race to the bottom' is a good thing. It is also not mutually exclusive from benefiting from international trade, or from helping otehr nations raise their standard of living.

[sandnsea]

37. They don't want those policies in America either

Dobbs & Buchanan don't want policies that protect US workers from being exploited by US corporations. They aren't pro-union. They aren't pro-workers' rights laws. They sure aren't pro-affirmative action and they sure don't believe racism has anything to do with the standard of living in this country or any other. They're Republicans, they don't care about you.

They care about the US and keeping the US, the white US, top dog. They're only concern is that corporations leaving the US and immigrants coming in are going to destroy the US superiority, the white US superiority. That's all.

It's stunning to me that anybody could think Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs care more about the workers in this country than Democrats. Just loopy.

[Armstead]

38. Loopy, eh?

I'll give you loopy. The Great Corporate Global Giveaway that Clinton and the DLC Democrats engaged in during the 1990's, which was the prelude to the Jackpot that the Bush GOP have continued since then.

[sandnsea]

39. That's what I mean

As if Republicans hadn't been shoving that down the throats of everybody in the country well before Clinton took office. But don't blame Republicans, no, jump on their bandwagon.

Yeah, I'd call that loopy.

[Armstead]

40. I blame Republicans too....But it's to be expeted from them

[sandnsea]

41. Dobbs and Buchanan are Republicans

Criminy. Good that they draw attention to problems we all care about, but don't be bamboozled into thinking you want to go where they would take you. You don't.

And I don't want to go where Clinton would take us either. But there are plenty of Democrats who would take us in a good direction. They do support fair immigration and fair global corporate trade, but with the kinds of regulations that Dobbs and Buchanan would be horrified over. That's the difference. Unions, environment, labor laws, human rights laws, equality. Don't lose sight of it.

I gotta go, it's visit the grandbaby night!!

[Armstead]

42. I appreciate when Republicans break ranks from the "free trade" mantra

I thinkk it is positive when conservatiuve Republicans break from the Corporatist Republicans just as I believe that the Demoicratic Party ought to break from the Corporatist Democratic mode.

I guess the difference here is that I actually think Dobbs finally woke up from the trance, and feels betrayed by the excesses of unrestrained Corporatism.

I realize he is a Republican libertarian, but I don't think that disqualifies him from having enough decency and common sense to get riled up over things that everyone should be getting riled up over, regardless of their ideology. It is possible for anyone to recognize and get angry that workers are getting a raw deal, that it is disgusting for CEO's to be making millions and billions of dollars at the expense of their employees, etc.

I also don't believe he is part of some slick Corporate PR job either. No way do the corporate overlords want to see the crusades he is pounding away at. They would much prefer that he would have stayed in his old mode of Corporate Shill.

What I'm saying is that in a non-political sense, anything that increases awareness of these issues is good. And that it will require recognition and action from all sides of the political spectrum to put the breaks on the Corporate Globalist Con Job of the last 30 years.

Once we return to some kind of overall sanity and balance, then we can fight the traditional "conservative versus liberal" debates with people like Dobbs. But for now, we need a multifaceted, bi-partisan groundswell to say "Enough is Enough" on the excess of corporate power and globalist oligarchy.

In a political sense, there are already a lot of progressive and liberal Democrats who have been fighting this for years. If awareness of that can be increased, it will help to erode the pereption that "all politicians are bums and crooks" and that there is no difference. Once Democrats can reassert that they stand for the interests of the majority over those of the elite, it can translate into political potency again.

P.S. Hope you had a good visit with your grandkid. :)