listening to joe lieberman describe dean's trade positions as "protectionist" got me thinking about NAFTA, etc. my gut reaction said that dean's stands are not protectionist, but i couldn't immediately say why, given the way the issue is usually framed: any regulation on international trade is deemed protectionist, as opposed to free-trade ("free" being the operative word)
dean needs to connect the threads of his vision more effectively, and i think i've hit on an idea...dean needs to establish a new rhetorical framework that pits the idea of "globalism" vs. "isolationism".
my phraseology here is just a first attempt - suggestions welcome. but slog through this and tell me what you think, if you're so inclined
dean positioning himself as a "globalist" ties together some of the political/governing philosophies he's already established:
* accountability
* community
* empowerment
moreover, "globalism" serves as a bridge between issues that voters often see as independant of one another. in other words, the idea of "globalism" links national security to global trade, and equal rights. even domestic economic concerns (rising heatlh care costs) fit into things. it's a "grand unification theory" of politcal rhetoric for dean.
the basics:
"globalism" is meant as a foil to the bush administration's "isolationist" policies.
bush has conducted a foreign policy that has isolated the u.s. form the rest of the world - including its allies.
bush's economic policies have singled out the top wage-earners as the main benificiaries.
every step of the way, bush is intent on being the very divider he claimed he wasn't in 2000. calling bush a divider doesn't completely capture it to me, though...it's more a combination of divider and bully - he not only wants to seperate, but deny rights, opportunities and hope to some.
contrast this with the idea of "globalism".
it basically means that dean understands the fact that the world - like it or not - is quite small...we are all interconnected and every one of us feels the impact. every one of us impacts every one else. consequently, we share responsiibilities too.
not only is it important to improve global working conditions for economic reasons (manufacturers won't have to compete as much on price - a losing battle for american firms), but for national security reasons. improving global working conditions, rights of unionization, etc., also reduces economic disparities between people. improving the living standards of people reduces the hopeless, desperate conditions that are what creates terrorists.
arguing for equal rights/opportunity for humanity isn't just good from an altruistic perspective...it's good politics in a country where
40% of hispanic immigrants send $30 mil home to relatives - that's more than the $17.2 mil the u.s. sends out in foreign aid.
even the idea of covering every american with health insurance is globalist...it's an acknowledgement that we're in this together.
dean can describe his campaign as the embodiment of globalist philosophies - a campaign that respects the power of individuals and embraces the idea of collaboration and mutual accountability.
dean's already there, for the most part...but it's never been articulated as an overarching theme - connecting each and every one of his positions.
maybe this could do the trick.
shux :: deanforamerica