The Lou Dobbs Democrats
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Elections, General PoliticsA few weeks ago, I called for Lou Dobbs to think about running for President. Now, while that may be completely unrealistic, Slate writer Jacob Weisberg decided to write an article about the election and he’s calling the new class of Dems who made it in “Lou Dobbs Democrats.”
…in places where Democrats made their most-impressive inroads this year, one heard a distinctly different message of economic nationalism. Nationalism begins from the populist premise that working people aren’t doing so well. But instead of blaming the rich at home, it focuses its energy on the poor abroad. The leading economic nationalist today is probably Lou Dobbs, who on nights other than Election Night natters on against free trade, outsourcing, globalization, and immigration on CNN. [...]In Virginia, apparent winner James Webb denounced outsourcing and blasted George Allen for voting to allow more “foreign guest workers” into the state. In Missouri, victor Claire McCaskill refused to let incumbent James Talent out-hawk her on immigration. “Unfair trade agreements have sent good American jobs packing, hurting Missouri workers and communities,” she said in one of her ads. “We should be encouraging businesses to stay at home, not rewarding them for moving overseas.” In Michigan, vulnerable Democratic incumbent Deborah Stabenow survived while promising to set up a federal office to prosecute unfair trade by foreign governments. [...]
It would be going too far to say that the 2006 election ushers in a new protectionist consensus. But free trade has definitely left the building.
I guess we’ll see how they act, but I think the use of Lou Dobbs in this context is interesting nonetheless.
This entry was posted on Friday, November 10th, 2006 and is filed under Elections, General Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:50 am
Those complaining the loudest about outsourcing seem to know least about it. From what I’ve seen over my 25 yrs in manufacturing, outsourcing has helped save many American jobs and have kept many plants from closing.
The key drivers of outsourcing are fierce foreign competition for commodity type products (not hard to make or labor intensive) and Wall Street.
The choice many manufacturers face is to either purchase/make many commodity items overseas, import them to the US and then add the final value here, or go out of business. Without that option, factories would be closing all over the place. At this point, outsourcing is not an option, it’s a requirement. The world has changed and there is no going back.
The worst actor in this is Wall Street, which also includes the common stockholder (401K). Those stock analysts are just brutal tyrants and have been mostly responsible for many of the negative business trends. So are the stockholders, as they (we) expect 10% minmun returns on their (our) stock holdings every freaking year.
This relentless desire for high (and eventually unsustainable) returns has driven companies to dump employees wholesale (it’s called “Lean”), not invest in new equipment, and many other shortshighted things to keep the stock holders happy. They do this because that’s about the only way left to keep improving short term profits, which is required to appease the stock holders lust for greater and greater returns.
If you’ve never lived in manufacturing, you just wouldn’t believe what an incredible rat race it’s become, trying to survive week to week, month to month. But at least it’s not boring.
I just can’t see how government can do anything except screw things up worse but trying to fiddle with something when they don’t understand how it works. And the rhetoric like Mr. Webb or Mr. Dobbs is spouting sure makes it plain to me that they don’t have a clue.
November 10th, 2006 at 1:38 am
Listen, I agree, but only to a point. I know outsourcing is a reality we need to embrace, but we don’t need to reward it, and I think that’s what these guys are ultimately talking about.
However, what needs to happen in conjunction with this rhetoric, which these guys are also stressing, is making sure that we’re better educated for the jobs of the future. We need to have a sane blend of protectionism with dynamic education programs. Obviously there needs to be a balance, but to your points we also have to accept the reality of the global economy and where it’s going to go.
Trust me, I share your frustrations, but since we don’t have the proper safety nets in place, we have to do something until we can catch up.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Here are two examples of the mess we’ve gotten ourselves into, from the world of agriculture.
1. The American cotton industry is worth $5.9 billion. The federal government subsidizes it to the tune of $4.5 billion. This is not a business. It’s a federal corporate welfare scheme. The cotton we grow is shipped to China (and other cheap labor countries) to the manufactured into clothing, since we no longer have a viable manufacturing sector in garments.
2. Americans pay twice the world market price for sugar, in order to protect sugar cane producers in Florida, Hawaii (which finally gave up on sugar), and sugar beets in the Midwest (which also didn’t fly economically, even with the supports). Because of this, our soft drinks are sweetened with high fructose corn syrup, now the leading suspect in our epidemic of diabetes. In the process of supporting an unviable sugar industry, we helped to destroy the economies of Cuba, Haiti, the Philippines and many other countries that produce sugar by the labor-intensive, and environmentally sound, methods appropriate to “emerging economies”.
I appreciate how complex these issues are, and cannot offer any pat answers for addressing them. My first suggestion, though, is that we take a serious look at all of these subsidy programs, all government price supports, and all forms of government corporate welfare, and assess exactly how the composite of all of these federal state and local dollars could best be applied to meet our goals: how much money, how many jobs, what contribution to the economy, what strategic goals are supported, etc. For example, what if we give up on homegrown cotton and shift that subsidy to homegrown energy crops to replace fossil fuels purchased from hostile regimes? Or what if we target specifically family farms for support and select those crops that provide more jobs per federal subsidy dollar?
Dragging this back to the beginning topic, why not apply this same scrutiny to all federal assistance, whether through subsidies, tax breaks or whatever. Let’s target them to specific strategic goals, and not just to a general pumping up of the economy.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:57 am
1) Just because something is a “reality” doesn’t mean we should embrace it. Murder is a “reality”. The misguided war in Iraq is a “reality”. Torture is a “reality”. AIDS is a “reality”. The fact that your teeth will rot away without intervention on your part is a “reality”. Why isn’t it a “reality” that american programmers can go to India and work there? Clearly, the Indian government prevents this “reality” from occurring, while ours actively allows it to happen. It’s also a “reality” that given enough political clout any given political “reality” will change.
2) “The world has changed and there is no going back.” Really? What happened to that little experiment called Prohibition?
3) Regarding “being competitive”: With whom, and for how long? The huge corporation that I worked for, EDS, use to whine that that they weren’t “competitive” with the likes of IBM because IBM’s average revenue per employee was roughly twice that of EDS. This was during the tenure of Dick “In your Ass” Brown, who collected (I hesitate to use the term “earned”) 55 million one year, and something like 37 million for getting himself fired. About two years later they were whining that they need to be competitive with with the likes of Wipro — necessitating another round of jobs going to India. How long do you think EDS can remain competitive with Indian companies? Let’s see. Say you’re a client. EDS has an Indian workforce and fat, expensive, technically ignorant management (how do Americans get technical competance nowadays?) while some Indian company now has an Indian workforce (Tie) and leaner, less expensive (cost of living in India), and technically experienced management (Advantage: Indian company). Do you suddenly decide to pay more for “Made in America” management? Why would you? Do you really think the people driving all this outsourcing are thinking about the long term competitiveness of American companies? Only if they’re very, very stupid, or very, very arrogant thinking that Indians, Chinese, etc., are all congenitally incapable of managing or innovating. The more likely scenario is that those driving the outsourcing are getting big $$$, taking the money and running, and leaving the rest of us with bubkes. Look at Dick Brown. I’m sure that he’s living high on the hog these days not giving a rat’s a** about the state he left EDS or its employees OR its “investors” in. Of course, while he was employed, all the idiot ever squawked about was the welfare of the dear little investors, he being but their humble servant. I’m sure this holds true for nearly all the CEOs out there who scream they’re only doing it for the stockholders, company, whatever.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
I think a lesson in the market is needed injection into this conversation. I give you Billy Ray Valentine in Trading Places:
You people and your damn protectionism is going to mean I can’t buy the G.I. Joe with the kung-fu grip and my wife isn’t going to f…make love to me. And then you are going to get your ass summarily voted out of office.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Protectionism has traction for one reason: the people who are (supposedly) helped by it are an easily identifiable small group. But the people who are hurt are merely the entire population, who no longer get to pay lower prices. Which means it is frequently good politics, but lousy economics.
November 10th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
John,
I also think that CEO and upper management salaries are way past obscene. And yes I’m certain that many put self interest above company long term viability. And they’ve received a large reward while ordinary employees have born the brunt of the burden.
Your analogy about prohibition doesn’t work at all. There is no going back to the good old days and the government can’t force it without reaking havoc on us all.
What we have to remember is that we aren’t entitled to good jobs, but rather, we have to earn them. Tough competition is not a bad thing if you handle it right. It forces you to become better and smarter at what you do. Improvements in US car quality happened because of tough competition. And it’s been a real positive accomplishment that would not have happened otherwise.
Outsourcing is also a response to tough competition. It’s also required for US companies to expand into international markets. It happens not because of government incentives, but because there are other places in the world where you can make high quality stuff for less money. They are kickin our ass – is that their fault or our own? We don’t deserve it if we aren’t willing to work hard for it.
If you want to see the dismal results of a government mandated entitlement society, go to Europe. Talk to business people over there and ask what style of government is better for business – ours or theirs.
November 10th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Lewis says.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your analogy about prohibition doesn’t work at all. There is no going back to the good old days and the government can’t force it without reaking havoc on us all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What we have to remember is that we aren’t entitled to good jobs, but rather, we have to earn them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Tough competition is not a bad thing if you handle it right. It forces you to become better and smarter at what you do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Improvements in US car quality happened because of tough competition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It’s also required for US companies to expand into international markets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They are kickin our ass – is that their fault or our own?
November 10th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
For people who’ve lost their jobs, protectionism seems the perfect solution. But you really need to look into the longterm effects of such a policy and how it will effect not just the prices in the stores but our nation’s chances to evolve into a power that can compete in the next economic age. When the industrial age hit, there were a LOT of problems and strife but we got through it not by sending everyone back to the farm but by making calculated, forward-thinking adjustments. It took time and some serious mistakes but we grew into an industrial power. We’re now moving into another age and there’s a lot of strife. The solution is not to throw everyone back into the factories but to find ways to ease the transition.
Adjustments need to be made, but they need to move us forward and not try to recapture something that is already gone.
November 15th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
I want to make something very,very clear…
If you think Outsourcing is good,is fine and needs to stay then I say that you are:
NOT A REAL AMERICAN CITIZEN, YOU ARE ANTI-AMERICAN
Don’t agree with me? Tough nookies buddies.
I, my small staff and my ENTIRE OFFICE was outsourced.
I am almost 50 and you have no idea how hard it is now to find a real job not one for $8.00 an hour.
P. Edward Murray
Former Team Leader
Panasonic National Diagnostic Center
Langhorne (Suburban Philadelphia) PA.
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Mr. Murray – you are absolutely correct.
Have you ever noticed how the free trader proponents are either in cushy jobs or thinktanks – telling us outsourcing, illegal immigration is good for America – they need to get pushed into a real american existence – which would show them how wrong they are. That Weisberg (globalist) would write some garbage is not surprising – Every jew I”ve ever meant is an open borders, capitalism promoter. But not for Israel.
It sure seems like Slate and it’s readers are bias toward the wallstreet side and against Americans.
ACTIVIST-DEMOCRATS-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
MajorHart
October 30th, 2007 at 6:21 am
Mutual Funds and Market Research…
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…
April 9th, 2008 at 8:45 am
“If you think Outsourcing is good,is fine and needs to stay then I say that you are: NOT A REAL AMERICAN CITIZEN, YOU ARE ANTI-AMERICAN Don’t agree with me? Tough nookies buddies.”
I am a real American and I am not in favor of restricting trade, nor restricting imports nor restricting immigration.
If you were so smart you would figure out that things change over time and you will have to adapt (outsourcing or not). Your signature says you are a team leader. Do you have enough leadership qualities to start your own business? Obviously you see yourself as having skills. What skills do you have and how can you use them to create and sell something or some service that people will buy? Or do you just wish to complain and bury your head in the sand and say “I don’t want to compete and I want big brother to make prices higher for other Americans and decrease their standard of living instead.”