LINKEDINCOMMENTMORE

Defenders of our two main political establishments describe Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon as usurpers on opposite ends of the extreme fringes. Sanders, they say, represents the extreme left of the Democrats, and Bannon the extreme right of the Republicans. Both would be bad for our country.

They do have this much in common: They think that bad international trade agreements were a major cause of the disintegration of America’s middle class and should be changed. That has placed them at odds with those in their own parties who want to fundamentally preserve the status quo.

Unregulated and untaxed trade, both national and international, has always been a core goal of the Republican Party. It was, after all, President George H. W. Bush who signed the NAFTA agreement in December, 1992 with President Carlos Salinas of Mexico and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada.

President Bill Clinton was originally against NAFTA, but his Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin advised him to support it. It would make corporations more profitable and he could reduce the deficit by raising taxes on America’s richest citizens. Against the wishes of the Democrat majority, Clinton decided to support ratification.

To pacify Democratic critics, Clinton insisted that NAFTA would have side agreements to protect workers and the environment. They were made, but were cosmetic and ineffectual. Mexico, especially, had no intention to honor them.

Result of NAFTA and later trade agreements: A few of our most successful industrial cities became ghost towns. Many others lost their major industrial employers. Millions of employees lost their homes and standard of living. Because of the threat of abandonment, workers in this country have lost the power to negotiate for higher wages and better working conditions. Corporations, not government, now regulate the conditions of our domestic labor market

Both major political parties are unwilling to admit how bad these agreements were. Bannon convinced Trump to make the issue a major part of his campaign and blame NAFTA, a Republican creation, on Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton claimed that, although the agreements had harmed workers, the economy had improved under the Obama administration much more than workers appreciated. Resentful workers in the Rust Belt bought Trump’s analysis.

Much of our world has become irreversibly globalized since NAFTA, and we’re now limited in our ability to make favorable changes. This is where Sanders and Bannon are opposites.

Bannon wants to destroy both major political parties and create an isolationist government of America Firsters. He supported the appointment of Trump cabinet members who wanted to eviscerate the government departments they were to lead. Instead of modifying previous international agreements, he would simply repeal them — everything from trade to climate change.

Sanders, on the other hand, seeks a New Deal kind of constructive revolution that would benefit workers as well as investors for a change. He would gradually modify trade agreements in ways that would benefit workers and the environment in all countries involved. Instead of cutting taxes on the wealthy, he would increase progressive taxes to finance programs for those victimized by an economy that favors investors over workers. Sanders knows climate change is real and wants to cooperate with other nations to address it.

Sanders wants an orderly, unifying and effective revolution. Bannon wants to divide, destroy and dominate.

Chuck Kelly lives in Fairview Forest and is author of “The Destructive Achiever; power and ethics in the American corporation.” He can be reached at kellycm2@bellsouth.net.

LINKEDINCOMMENTMORE
Read or Share this story: http://avlne.ws/2jlVpM4