It’s a fascinating spectacle reading the news reports about Mattel’s recall of 19 million toys sent from China. Most of the reports and editorials focus, rightly, on the low level of safety standards in China. But, it’s foolish to simply blame the Chinese for the lead in toys. The fact is that those dangers were a number of decades coming and can be traced right back to people like Milton Friedman and the band of ideologues who have pushed on our country and the rest of the world that the magic of the market will save us all. To heck with government, damn regulations…give your faith–and, not surprisingly, the health of your children–over to the free market.

    It is important to point out that the ideological framework for the dangers facing our children has come not just from the pages of The Wall Street Journal but also the "liberal" New York Times. Here are two paragraphs from the Times’ editorial yesterday, entitled "China, Unregulated": 

It is definitely not in America’s interest — economic, political or strategic — to erect a barricade against Chinese imports, which could spark a mutually destructive trade war. American businesses and the Bush administration must send a clear message to Beijing that it has to clean up its act or its export-led boom will falter.

What China needs is an effective and transparent regulatory system to enforce product safety standards. The United States and other countries can help with technical advice and warnings about what would happen if Beijing refuses to take it. But the dangers are too immediate to wait.

    Well, let’s think about this for a moment. The Times’ editorial is asking China to "clean up its act." But, where did this act begin? It began long ago when, in our country, there was a bi-partisan attack on the idea that government regulation of the market was an important part of a humane society. Yes, Republicans were the most vociferous proponents of "getting government off the backs of the people." But, there was, at best, a weak defense of government; in some cases, the Clinton Administration’s  embrace of deregulation was as spirited, witness welfare "reform" and Bill Clinton’s enthusiastic promotion of the Telecommunications Act (which did more to give rise to the corporate media giants’ control over the airwaves than Rupert Murdoch could ever hope for).

    And the enthusiasm for globalization is at the core of what is happening in China today. Where do we think the world, including China, got the idea that societies could operate without effective regulations? The United States of America. The Times’ editorial writers have been regular champions of so-called "free trade. And what is at the heart of so-called "free trade?" The market is paramount, that any regulations that stop the flow of capital and investment are suspect.

    I hate to get specific here and deal with facts but just let’s focus on the boring subject of Chapter 11 rights in so-called "free trade" agreements, from NAFTA right through to today’s current proposed deals with South Korea.  Let’s say a company doing business in a country that has a party to one of these so-called "free trade" agreements believes a law violates rights or protections the company has under the trade deal. The company can take its case before a trade tribunal, which can, then, rule that a law–say an environmental law or labor law or safety law–is illegal under the so-called "free trade" regime and award tax-payer dollars to corporations. And this tribunal operates behind closed doors, with no public input or scrutiny and none of the basic due process or transparency one would expect in open courts.

    Chapter 11 rights allow companies to undercut our democracy–laws that are passed by the people we elect can be overridden by an unaccountable, unelected tribunal. And it is precisely these kinds of rights–rights that The Times has defended in its full-throated, unwavering defense of so-called "free trade"–that lead directly to the dangers our children face from unsafe toys.

    So spare me the outrage. China doesn’t need The Times telling it to accept "technical advice" from the outside. What China needs–and the world needs–is a sound rejection of the ideology of the so-called "free market" and so-called "free trade"–the very ideology The Times has promoted for lo these many years. Next time a kid chokes on a magnet, thank Milton Friedman and The New York Times.