That's My Bush
I have to say that I'm pretty shocked by Bush's decision to impose duties on Chinese exports. I think this is very likely to be a bad policy, although I should note that I have some sympathy with the use of quotas to create export-oriented jobs in extremely poor countries. One irony of free trade is that it can make it harder for some countries to make any money trading, and a lot of small countries worry about the China effect.
Still, this policy isn't aimed at retaining some space for poor countries to maintain their exports. It's simply a duty on Chinese exports that might have that effect, but very well might not. It seems to me that this is likely a political move designed to cause problems for Democrats.
I don't know exactly what the logic is, but the timing is suspicious. Is this designed to take the issue away from the Democrats? Is it designed to produce splits among Democrats? Is it designed to embarrass a particular Democratic presidential candidate, or make it harder for Democrats to raise money?
Of course, the possibility remains that Bush has always wanted to impose these duties, and now the political climate finally allows it. Whatever the case, this reinforces my belief in the worthlessness of the Bush administration. Very few people agree entirely with one party. We count on the other party to stand up for its principles in a way that forces compromises. The Bush administration, though, has exactly the wrong Republican values. Bush is more than happy to work with the Iranians if that's what it takes to hurt gay people. Put a little pressure on our trade policy, though, and he wilts like a little flower.
In fact, I can't help thinking that this is partly the point. After all, if Bush goes balls to the wall to fight gay rights, but fades quickly when it comes to trade, it makes it less attractive for people like me to vote for Democrats. The Democrats won't be able to protect gay people from Bush, but they will be able to reverse a lot of progress we've made on trade. It's in line with Bush's all-or-nothing, "you're with us or you're against us" approach. "Haha," Bush seems to be saying to people like me, "Don't you regret Democratic control of Congress?" No, I don't. Congress is finally challening Bush aggressively, and when Bush is able to make the consequences perverse, what I really regret is his election in the first place.
[For what it's worth - approximately nothing - the Times says, "Mr. Gutierrez [the Commerce Secretary] said that the administration’s step was based on careful study of Chinese subsidy practices and was being carried out irrespective of any pressure from Congress."]
[UPDATE: added link above]
Still, this policy isn't aimed at retaining some space for poor countries to maintain their exports. It's simply a duty on Chinese exports that might have that effect, but very well might not. It seems to me that this is likely a political move designed to cause problems for Democrats.
I don't know exactly what the logic is, but the timing is suspicious. Is this designed to take the issue away from the Democrats? Is it designed to produce splits among Democrats? Is it designed to embarrass a particular Democratic presidential candidate, or make it harder for Democrats to raise money?
Of course, the possibility remains that Bush has always wanted to impose these duties, and now the political climate finally allows it. Whatever the case, this reinforces my belief in the worthlessness of the Bush administration. Very few people agree entirely with one party. We count on the other party to stand up for its principles in a way that forces compromises. The Bush administration, though, has exactly the wrong Republican values. Bush is more than happy to work with the Iranians if that's what it takes to hurt gay people. Put a little pressure on our trade policy, though, and he wilts like a little flower.
In fact, I can't help thinking that this is partly the point. After all, if Bush goes balls to the wall to fight gay rights, but fades quickly when it comes to trade, it makes it less attractive for people like me to vote for Democrats. The Democrats won't be able to protect gay people from Bush, but they will be able to reverse a lot of progress we've made on trade. It's in line with Bush's all-or-nothing, "you're with us or you're against us" approach. "Haha," Bush seems to be saying to people like me, "Don't you regret Democratic control of Congress?" No, I don't. Congress is finally challening Bush aggressively, and when Bush is able to make the consequences perverse, what I really regret is his election in the first place.
[For what it's worth - approximately nothing - the Times says, "Mr. Gutierrez [the Commerce Secretary] said that the administration’s step was based on careful study of Chinese subsidy practices and was being carried out irrespective of any pressure from Congress."]
[UPDATE: added link above]
posted by James | 9:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home