No, I haven’t turned this into a sex advice column (hmmm…maybe the readership would skyrocket? Memo to NW–put on "to consider" list). From way back during the fight over NAFTA, there was an interesting–and, for some, uncomfortable–alliance between "left" and "right." The "left" saw NAFTA as a disaster for workers and the environment, whereas the "right" (Pat Buchanan and the like) saw NAFTA as leading to one-world government and an attack on American sovereignty. The reason I put each spectrum definition in quotes is simply because those definitions don’t really tell you much about the issues–for example, we should all care, left or right, that so-called "free trade" does subject laws, that are passed by our elected representatives, to attack by corporations (the Chapter 11 provisions).
What leads me to remark on this is today’s article in The Wall Street Journal:
As concern grows about globalization’s impact on consumer safety and job security, a Bush administration initiative to ease regulatory burdens on North American businesses is sparking a backlash from activists on both the left and the right.
The regulatory initiative — which was advancing during a summit between President Bush and his Canadian and Mexican counterparts here yesterday — stems from a two-year-old effort among the three countries called the Security and Prosperity Partnership. The idea for the partnership, announced at a similar summit in Waco, Texas, in 2005, grew out of concerns that heightened border security in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks could impede commerce at a time when North American businesses already faced growing overseas competition.
And…
The controversy was on display at the two-day summit here where Mr. Bush joined Mexican President Felipe Calderón and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Riot police used tear gas, pepper spray and batons to block hundreds of protesters from the entrance to a historic chateau where the three leaders were meeting in the Quebec countryside.
While the demonstrators raised a range of issues including civil-liberties worries, some anger was directed at the regulatory harmonization being sought with the help of corporations.
"No to Americanada," said several placards.
Leftists aren’t the only ones opposing the initiative. A band of conservative groups calling itself the Coalition to Block the North American Union held a news conference expressing concern over what it views as a secretive, corporate-influenced process. The critics also questioned the arrangement’s potential impact on immigration and job losses to foreign workers.
What this mostly reflects is a growing unease about the neo-liberal system. The unease is obvious from a progressive point of view. But, the conservative objections are interesting, too–mainly in the way they reflect the anger at the base. A bunch of people are really pissed off about undocumented workers–and their anger is often ugly and, sometimes, racist. But, at its heart, it comes from economic insecurity. The opportunity is there for us to show a certain segment of the people that they are right to be angry about the economy–but the culprit is not undocumented workers who have no power and are economic refugees but corporate power, which has shaped international and domestic policies that hurt all working people.
