Revisiting False Populism

I'd like to revisit the false populism issue from Bush's State of the Union address the other night. Obviously, the Colombia Free Trade pact is hardly the most important thing in the world (Colombia's just too small for this to make a big impact on the US economy one way or the other), but the claim that "If we fail to pass this agreement, we will embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere" is an excellent example of the complete lack of strategic thought that characterizes this administration. James Poulos, like me, didn't understand how Hugo Chavez would be emboldened by our failure to ratify the agreement. Daniel Larison explains:

It’s like this, James: if you push for more neoliberal policies in Latin America, that will magically reduce the popularity of the “false populism” that has flourished on account of the backlash against the last round of neoliberal policies pushed by Washington, whereas if you don’t support those policies “false populism” will run wild. That’s clear, isn’t it?

That's really it, though. In Bush world, first you set out to do something. Then if that thing seems to not be working out or causing problems, what you need to do is do it again harder. Anything else, after all, would only embolden the bad guys. It's that simple and it's that dumb.

Comments

Mightn't a free trade agreement with Colombia help support that democracy in its fight against its narco-terrorist insurgency? Isn't this the sort of non-military support liberal internationalists prefer over military intervention?

Posted by Fred | January 31, 2008 2:03 PM

Such a trade agreement might or might not help "Colombia". But there is both widespread support and opposition within Colombia with regard to yet another "free trade" agreement, but since the labor unions are such frequent targets of assassination by the paramilitary right it's a little harder to organize that sector's opposition.

Posted by El Cid | January 31, 2008 2:07 PM

My reading of Bush's statement was that a failure to support and pursue neoliberal trade policy in latin america would be interpreted as a decline in US influence in the region driven by the "purveyors of false populism". He doesn't want Chavez to be able to spin Venezuelan economic partnerships as a viable alternative to those of the US. Bush is, obviously, overstating the risks though. At least if my Tabula Rosa is working in this case!

Posted by Rice | January 31, 2008 2:13 PM

First of all, free trade is great for Latin American countries, including the cost of internal dislocations.

Second of all, latin american countries have different sources of problems, it's not a common story; although the original sin is the Spanish legacy of using latin america to establish society based on an organic view of politics, a racist division and an economy solely focused on resource extraction. Venezuela still suffers I think from the oil curse which doesn't allow for the creation of a dynamic economy but instead turns politics into a fight over rents.

Third, if you want to look for American responsibility, take a look at the drug policies which destroy state capacity and the rule of law in countries like Colombia and Mexico. That should be the biggest source of shame regardless of whether someone is in favor of drug legalization or not.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | January 31, 2008 2:16 PM

Btw, free trade is much more important for latin american countries than it is for the US, because one of the biggest problems for poorer countries is their inability to export to developed markets. Developing export sectors also allows to really develop dynamic, competitive parts in the economy along with a genuine middle class.

To turn the question around, people who criticize Bush on this one, can't have it two ways on the issue. You can't blame free trade for destroying american jobs and then turn around and blame free trade for destroying latin american jobs. Obviously some benefit from free trade otherwise there wouldn't be a benefit for it. Well, roughly speaking, in America the benefit is on the consumer side, in Latin America, the benefit is on the producer side. And the overall benefit outweighs the cost for all involved.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | January 31, 2008 2:22 PM

This is just the old "strong horse" argument applied to Latin America. If we look weak, then Chavez, Castro and Morales look stronger by comparison.

It's not all that complicated (nor, in my opinion, all that correct), so why is Matt pretending to be confused?

Posted by heedless | January 31, 2008 2:23 PM

You can't blame free trade for destroying american jobs and then turn around and blame free trade for destroying latin american jobs.

That's simply absurd. That is quite commonly both in the U.S. and Mexico found to be a major result of NAFTA in both the U.S. and Mexico -- many local producers who employed more people were displaced by multinational producers who employed fewer people, and also repatriating capital out of the nation instead of remaining in the domestic economy. You lost jobs in both countries in the relevant categories, and the fact that this doesn't appear in introductory economic coloring books is completely irrelevant.

Why exactly is it that people insist on assuming that those in positions of extreme wealth and power, unlike those of us commenting on blogs, are unable to conceive and plan such simplistically advantageous matters?

Posted by El Cid | January 31, 2008 2:35 PM

I'm in the camp that thinks that the "false populism" crack was a bank shot from Chavez to Edwards -- but might it have been a triple-bank shot, from Chavez to Edwards to Huckabee?

Huckabee, it should be noted, is in fact guilty of false populism, as he's trying to engage in populist appeal with the state of the economy, while proposing solutions that are incoherent and utterly regressive.

Posted by The Confidence Man | January 31, 2008 2:44 PM

What El Cid said. If "one of the biggest problems for poorer countries is their inability to export to developed markets" then a far bigger problem is when the US decides to help those poor countries out by drafting a "free trade" agreement.

Posted by tps12 | January 31, 2008 2:56 PM

What El Cid said. Nick K., I think you might be misunderstanding what all these "free trade" agreements are fundamentally about. They're not about the relations between the US and Mexico or Peru or Columbia. They're about the relations between capital and labor.

These agreements were drawn up by capital, essentially because capital was tired of being subject to the democratic decisions of people and their elected governments. Capital benefits from these agreements in every country, and workers are hurt by these agreements in every country.

Evaluate "free trade" agreements in terms of class, not nationality, and their purposes and effects become a lot clearer.

Posted by Pesto | January 31, 2008 3:08 PM

first you set out to do something. Then if that thing seems to not be working out or causing problems, what you need to do is do it again harder.

That's been my grand strategy in the sack for nearly a decade now. It leaves my partners shocked and awed.

Posted by JB | January 31, 2008 3:24 PM

Second of all, latin american countries have different sources of problems, it's not a common story; although the original sin is the Spanish legacy of using latin america to establish society based on an organic view of politics, a racist division and an economy solely focused on resource extraction. Venezuela still suffers I think from the oil curse which doesn't allow for the creation of a dynamic economy but instead turns politics into a fight over rents. - Nick Kaufman

And how exactly does free trade address those problems (which are not unique to Latin American countries, btw ... even our American South had that same "original sin" although it was English wanna-be nobility that established the society in question)? Indeed, free trade, being based on the idea of "comparative advantage" tends to re-enforce and fossilize resource-extraction and/or agrarian based economies as they are, in order that they maintain a specialization in their comparative advantages in trading.

A little bit of "cui bono" goes a long way here. While the genetic fallacy that parodies a cui bono line of questioning is clearly wrong -- just because someone stands to gain from the approach they support, doesn't mean that approach is necessarily wrong (indeed, our whole political system, as the pearl-clutchers in the media seem to forget, is based on politicians doing that which promotes their ambitions ... and just channeling those ambitions to counteract ambition) -- there is something to be gained by exploring who indeed argues for "free trade" and why: it is the elites of the agrian/resource extracting economies who benefit from free trade and who support it. Consider, e.g., who the free-traders were and why in the antebellum period.

OTOH, note that industrial nations tend to industrialize and develop behind protectionist barriers. There have been many "experiments" in the effects of free trade; i.e. there is much historical evidence about who benefits and who doesn't from "free trade".

So why do people insist on arguing that free trade would, e.g., help economies develop, when it clearly always seems to have the opposite effect historically?

Posted by DAS | January 31, 2008 3:41 PM

Huckabee, it should be noted, is in fact guilty of false populism, as he's trying to engage in populist appeal with the state of the economy, while proposing solutions that are incoherent and utterly regressive. - The Confidence Man

Yeah, but such false populism is part and parcel of the old Dixiecrat (now GOP) handbook, from which GW Bush himself has frequently drawn. Was GWB's comment yet another example of projection?

And why the hating on Huckabee? Do the richers finally realize the monster they've unleashed and that being Strauss's philosophers won't get them off the hook once a not-so-false populist, who nonetheless has some incoherent and utterly regressive beliefs especially in terms of social conservatism, gets into power? It is true that Huckabee's populism fails to extend deep enough to actually promote economic policies the richers would truly fear ... so what would the fear be?

Posted by DAS | January 31, 2008 3:51 PM

In Bush world, first you set out to do something. Then if that thing seems to not be working out or causing problems, what you need to do is do it again harder. Anything else, after all, would only embolden the bad guys. It's that simple and it's that dumb.

And it's also the definition of insanity.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | January 31, 2008 4:53 PM

Actually, it's got nothing to do with strategic thinking, at all. It's a dog-whistle way of whipping up support for the pact by telling his base that, "If we don't pass this, the terrorists win." Only in this case, substitute "Chavez" for "the terrorists," which is a distinction without a difference to the people this rhetoric is aimed at.

Posted by urbino | January 31, 2008 6:35 PM

Actually, it's got nothing to do with strategic thinking, at all. It's a dog-whistle way of whipping up support for the pact by telling his base that, "If we don't pass this, the terrorists win." Only in this case, substitute "Chavez" for "the terrorists," which is a distinction without a difference to the people this rhetoric is aimed at.

Posted by urbino | January 31, 2008 6:45 PM

"If we fail to pass this agreement, we will embolden the purveyors of false populism in our hemisphere" is an excellent example of the complete lack of strategic thought that characterizes this administration.

Actually, it's got nothing to do with strategic thinking, at all. It's a dog-whistle way of whipping up support for the pact by telling his base that, "If we don't pass this, the terrorists win." Only in this case, substitute "Chavez" for "the terrorists," which is a distinction without a difference to the people this rhetoric is aimed at.

Posted by urbino | January 31, 2008 6:45 PM

Sorry for the triple-post. Server wackiness. (At least it gave me a chance to fix the html the last time.)

Posted by urbino | January 31, 2008 6:46 PM

"There's three ways to do things. The right way, the wrong way, and the Max Power way."

"Isn't that just the wrong way?"

"But faster!"

Posted by Max Power | January 31, 2008 7:43 PM

Matt, You are lost in the woods on this one.

Colombia, a democratic country with a highly popular president, chose to have a free trade agreement with the US, and stood on their knees to get that. If the US does not deliver, reward, the countries that chose to be their friends, it is a MAJOR blow against US credibility and in favor of lefty populistas in Latin America.

Posted by Eco | January 31, 2008 8:51 PM

ou can't blame free trade for destroying american jobs and then turn around and blame free trade for destroying latin american jobs.

I guess you've never heard of farm subsidies in the US, especially those for corn producers.

There is precious little "free" about "free" trade. The Bush administration has had its head handed to it in the WTO over subsidies for cotton farmers that Brazil initiated on its own behalf as well as on behalf of countries like Burkina Faso and Mali.

As for this comment by the president:

Many products from these nations now enter America duty-free. Yet many of our products face steep tariffs in their markets. These agreements will level the playing field. They will give us better access to nearly 100 million customers.

One wonders whether the president and his anencephalic head is aware of the fifty cent per gallon tariff in the USA on Brazilian ethanol. Oh how I would love to have a leader who was intelligent and had some shred of self-awareness.

Posted by Randy Paul | January 31, 2008 9:55 PM

"That's simply absurd. That is quite commonly both in the U.S. and Mexico found to be a major result of NAFTA in both the U.S. and Mexico -- many local producers who employed more people were displaced by multinational producers who employed fewer people, and also repatriating capital out of the nation instead of remaining in the domestic economy. You lost jobs in both countries in the relevant categories, and the fact that this doesn't appear in introductory economic coloring books is completely irrelevant."

A big problem with NAFTA was that it allowed the continued subsidization of American agricutltural products that then got dumped on the Mexican market. I'm a skeptic of the idea that poor nations need to liberalize their trade policies in general (although countries like India could benefit from this). However, as the Korean experience shows, having relatively free access to the American market and other rich markets is definitely necessary. Korea combined policies that were market-oriented compared to communism while also having a large role for the state (even having five-year plans, combined with an efficient and productive state-owned steel industry). The problem in Latin America vis-a-vis the US is that the US has acted much like the British Empire, supporting the right of American companies to export to Latin American countries, buy up the best land, dump products, etc. while insisting that its own agricultural subsidies are ok while Latin ones are bad. However, this isn't as simple as free trade = bad.

Posted by Reality Man | January 31, 2008 9:59 PM

I believe it was Jedediah Springfield who said, "A Leader in a flight suit embiggens us all."

Posted by Alan in SF | January 31, 2008 10:53 PM

I'm a lot more worried about the purveyors of false "free trade" in this hemisphere: namely, so-called "free trade" agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, et al, that create a structural framework for corporate mercantilism. Neoliberalism has about as much to do with genuine "free trade" and "free markets" as Stalinism had to do with genuine workers' power.

Posted by Kevin Carson | February 1, 2008 3:16 AM

It goes like this, Matt: Colombia bent over backwards to accomodate the US in its war on drugs. It could have let the place run rampant and done nothing, but it chose to clean the place up instead. Then it overhauled its labor system to please Democrats who called the place a vortex of labor-rights evil, it protected labor leaders, it cleaned up its environment, it privatized and prepared to drop tariffs - all for the reward of free trae. Well, Uncle Sam, via Congress, has decided it considers Colombia insignificant and with a flick of its cigarette, decides to renege on its offer. What will the reaction be to that Big Lie - one of many from the US through history with Latin America? Hugo Chavez will laugh at them for being suckered by Uncle Sam yet again, and tell them they were fools to believe the US would keep its promises. What will Colombians do, now that they have been made to look like fools on the world stage by the one ally they trusted? They will vote for someone antiamerican, someone Chavista. If that happens, the US can enjoy its new strategic problems based on that Democratic intransigence and refusal to keep its promises. The Democrats are fond of imagining themselves as anti-imperialists, but in reality, they are treating Colombia like a colonial vassal, casually breaking their promises to the country, and then fully expecting Colombia to remain a friend. Won't work this time. Colombia is not interested in being kicked around this time.

Posted by Southern Cross | February 1, 2008 7:56 AM

Free trade in the Americas primarily helps small businesses, not large ones, look up the export figures, it shows that most trade with free trade countries is beneficial to small businesses not big ones. Big corporations already have it good and can afford any legal team to take care of the regulatory aspects for them. Without a free trade pact, little companies cannot. Mercantilism - the fascistic and socialistic cooptations of big noncompetitive businesses with special privileges already have de facto free trade, too, they don't need free trade the way small ones do. Free trade creates jobs because small businesses create the most jobs. Free trade helps the little guy.

Posted by Southern Cross | February 1, 2008 8:02 AM

Colombia, a democratic country with a highly popular president, chose to have a free trade agreement with the US, and stood on their knees to get that. If the US does not deliver, reward, the countries that chose to be their friends, it is a MAJOR blow against US credibility and in favor of lefty populistas in Latin America. - Eco

The questions are then "popular amongst whom?" and "who chose the free trade agreement?". If the free trade agreement really does have the popular support that is claimed by some, then, especially considering how Columbia has "bent over backward" for us, your argument stands.

But given our nation's clumsy history with knowing who and what really has popular support in other countries (and our history of supporting unpopular governments over leftish insurgencies, etc. ... not to mention various blowback issues), I don't trust that the free trade agreement is as "popular" as it's made out to be.

And if we help push through what really is an unpopular trade agreement, that too gives credence to the claims by left wing "populists" about our real agenda, does it not?

Posted by DAS | February 1, 2008 12:08 PM

"The questions are then "popular amongst whom?" and "who chose the free trade agreement?". If the free trade agreement really does have the popular support that is claimed by some, then, especially considering how Columbia has "bent over backward" for us, your argument stands."

My god, the stupidity and ignorance hurts!

(1) Uribe is popular with more than 80 percent of Colombians... He is damn popular.

(2) Colombians chose to have the free trade agreement. That is a representative democracy, its congress voted for it, its president pushed for it, and its people really want it.

(3) As regards the bending over backwards, see the comment by Southern Cross: They did all the US asked as the price to have the free trade agreement. To renege the deal now, it would be like kicking them in the eye.

It is indeed hard to imagine one action that the US could take towards Latin America that would be more damaging to the US stand in the region than dumping Colombia.

It would all but prove that the US is an unreliable ally.

Posted by Eco | February 1, 2008 2:52 PM

"The questions are then "popular amongst whom?" and "who chose the free trade agreement?". If the free trade agreement really does have the popular support that is claimed by some, then, especially considering how Columbia has "bent over backward" for us, your argument stands."

My god, the stupidity and ignorance hurts!

(1) Uribe is popular with more than 80 percent of Colombians... He is damn popular.

(2) Colombians chose to have the free trade agreement. That is a representative democracy, its congress voted for it, its president pushed for it, and its people really want it.

(3) As regards the bending over backwards, see the comment by Southern Cross: They did all the US asked as the price to have the free trade agreement. To renege the deal now, it would be like kicking them in the eye.

It is indeed hard to imagine one action that the US could take towards Latin America that would be more damaging to the US stand in the region than dumping Colombia.

It would all but prove that the US is an unreliable ally.

Posted by Eco | February 1, 2008 2:52 PM

Some more...

"But given our nation's clumsy history with knowing who and what really has popular support in other countries (and our history of supporting unpopular governments over leftish insurgencies, etc. ... not to mention various blowback issues), I don't trust that the free trade agreement is as "popular" as it's made out to be."

Let me guess, you barely can find Colombia on the map.

"And if we help push through what really is an unpopular trade agreement, that too gives credence to the claims by left wing "populists" about our real agenda, does it not?"

It is not an unpopular agreement, period.

Posted by Eco | February 1, 2008 2:55 PM