ambivalent imbroglio home

« Happy (Belated) Birthday, ai! | Main | Kucinich via Lessig »

August 11, 2003

Yes We Can!

If you don't have kids or friends with kids, you may not have heard of "Bob the Builder." Bob's a cartoon construction worker/handyman who works with his team of animated tools to, well, fix whatever needs fixing. Bob's theme song is called "Can we fix it?", and the song's chorus answers that question with an exuberant, "Yes we can!" (Click here to hear the song.)

I think of that song sometimes when I read transcripts of speeches by some of the Democratic presidential candidates, or when watching them respond to questions at various forums, such as the one that just finished tonight in Philadelphia. Listening to these Democrats fall over each other to demand universal health care and to condemn "right to work" laws as anti-union, "right to be exploited" laws is like taking deep breaths of fresh air after being under water for way too long. For the last three years Bush and Co. have made all kinds of noises, but most of them seem to have been either lies or attempts to scare their audience, or both. Now, instead of fear mongering and nothing but rhetoric designed to strengthen the corporate class, the Democrats are touring the country talking about ways to take care of all Americans, not just those who are already plenty taken care of. Democrats like Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun, and even John Kerry have given me a great deal more hope in the Democratic party and also in the prospects for the future. Can we really do something about the problems in our world? These candidates are standing up and saying "Yes we can!"

For example, at this most recent forum, the candidates addressed the question of global trade justice, and most of them said something along the lines of: we need to have smart trade that puts workers first. Of course, this is what you'd expect them to say when speaking to the Sheet Metal Workers International. But some of them went beyond the empty rhetoric of "we need to take care of workers" to talk about specific ways to do that, and just hearing their ideas made me think for the first time about the possibility of making trade fair via treaties and governmental regulation rather than via grassroots activism. Sure, college students can get together to demand their schools buy only sweat-free products, but progress by such methods is slow, at best. In addition to such efforts, why not build social justice into our trade agreements? As one of the candidates said, we shouldn't allow any products to be sold in the U.S. that are made by child labor, or by any workers without basic human rights, such as a reasonable wage, health care, reasonable working hours, real and enforceable workplace safety, etc. Nor should we allow the importation of any goods made in countries where manufacturers do not use sustainable environmental protections. If the U.S. built these kinds of regulations into its trade policy, the rest of the world would quickly follow suit and the entire world—both humans and their environment—would reap the rewards for generations to come. Under the reign of Bush, the idea of building social justice into trade policy is a farce. Under one of these Democratic presidents, the issues will at least be on the table, and that's a start.

Can we live in a better world with less inequality, less human suffering, and a healthy environment? Keep listening to the Democratic candidates and remember what Bob the Builder says: "Yes we can!"

-----
Just a couple more random thoughts from the SMWI forum:

  • Gephardt is not electable for one reason: He doesn't use active verbs. That may sound silly, but language matters and Gephardt's language is all half-measures. Listen to him and you'll hear "I tried," "I worked," "I think," etc. Those verbs don't show confidence or achievement, they only show effort. Do you want a president who can get things done, or one that tries hard? Gephardt would be more convincing if he used verbs like "I did," "I built," "I succeeded," "I know," etc. But he doesn't.
  • Moseley Braun needs to address the audience and not the moderator at forums like these.
  • Lieberman is all jowls. The poor man is like a poster-boy for a face lift.
  • Dean may be the most electable simply because he's really the most handsome. L. thinks so. I think he also comes across as the most trustworthy straight-talker, but the handsome thing is probably more important.
  • Kucinich would reach orders of magnitude more voters if he'd just relax a little and concentrate on sounding reasonable and measured. He's got beautiful ideas, but he seems unable to convey them at anything but a fever pitch. A fever pitch is great for emphasis, but it gets tiresome pretty quickly when it becomes your primary means of communication.
  • Kerry looks and sounds presidential, but the way he loses me when he dances around the question of why he joined his fellow Senators in abdicating Congress' constitutional responsibility to decide whether to use military force. Kerry and Gephardt (and Lieberman, but he's not a serious contender) are compromised on this issue and the only way they could plausibly get around it is to make the case that they were mislead by the Bush administration, right along with the rest of us. Instead, both echo Bush and Co. about Saddam's history of being a bad man. Sorry, that's not good enough when soldiers are dying every day.

  • Sharpton just rocks the house every time he speaks. He kicked off with a jab at Ah-nold: "Schwarzenegger is an impostor. I'm the real terminator: I want to terminate the Presidency of G. Bush, terminate John Ashcroft, and all the people who are taking away our democracy." (That's a paraphrase.) He also whipped out a great analogy to explain how Bush and Tony Blair convinced their countries to commit troops to go to war. Again, I'm paraphrasing, but Sharpton said something like, "What Bush told us about Iraq is like me telling you we have to get out of this building because it's on fire. So we all get outside and you say, 'Where's the fire?' And then I get my friend Tony Blair to come by and say, 'The fire doesn't matter; you needed some fresh air anyway.'" Sharpton's closing statement was priceless—you should be able to access it from a link here, but it involved a story about his grandmother telling him that the only way to get a donkey to move is to slap it, and ended with Sharpton saying "I'm going to slap this donkey all the way to the White House" (or something to that effect). Trust me, it was brilliant.

Posted August 11, 2003 09:15 PM | election 2004


No we can't. At least not under current WTO rules. Such changes (fair trade etc)are conveniently (for both parties I think) out of our hands. I am all for taking a red pen to the WTO guidelines in favor of a more equitable world, but with this economy nobody on either side is likely to even mention it. They are talking a good game, but their hands are tied and they know it. They will say they are sorry after being elected.

Posted by: BB at August 11, 2003 09:41 PM

Ok. You're probably right. I mean, about the WTO you're certainly right, and yes, there is always going to be huge resistance to any challenge to the status quo. But have you heard Dennis Kucinich? Every time he's in a forum like this he forces the other candidates to take a position on NAFTA and the WTO. He says these treaties are awful for workeres and the environment, and constantly promises that his first action when he takes office would be to "cancel" NAFTA and the WTO. Of course, in the current environment, we all hear that and laugh. "What does he mean 'cancel'? You can't just 'cancel" the WTO!" But why not? Bush "cancelled" Kyoto and is working on "cancelling" decades worth of arms control and nuclear proliferation treaties, why couldn't the next president "cancel" some trade treaties? It seems that one of the reasons current trade policy is so anti-worker and anti-environment is because corporate and "free market" interests have won the "let's be real" battle. "Let's be real," they say, "we can't force corporations around the world to treat their workers fairly and not muck up the environment!" The success of the Right in this regard is also why trade agreements have gradually moved the power to regulate trade out of the executive and legislative arms of our government and turned them over to administrative bodies like the WTO. You're right that this makes it easier for political candidates to talk a good game and then do nothing about these issues. But my point is that all of this can change, and listening to the Democratic candidates reminds me that change is possible. We need to take back the terms of reality, because reality is that at current levels, we may just make the planet uninhabitable within the next century. Reality is that we can't afford *not* to make trade policy more just.

I know that no matter who becomes our next president (and I know it won't be Kucinich), he (I really don't think it's going to be Moseley Braun, either) won't be able to right all current trade wrongs with the stroke of a pen. However, what gives me hope is that they're finally talking about it, which is more than Bush does. Sure, the next president will get into office and say, "Oops, guess I can't do all that stuff." But getting social justice issues back on the table will at least be a step in the right direction.

Yes, I'm an idealist. It's good to have goals, don't you think? ;-)

Posted by: ambimb at August 12, 2003 06:54 AM

Yes it is. Well spoken. I think any step away from this administration's policies is a step in the right direction.

Posted by: BB at August 12, 2003 09:59 PM

about   ∞     ∞   archives   ∞   links   ∞   rss
This template highly modified from The Style Monkey.