Clinton-style centrist economics rests on a surprisingly shaky foundation

[w4rma]

The center-left economic policy consensus that dominated the administrations of Barack Obama and Bill Clinton now rests on surprisingly shaky electoral foundations. Not only is Clinton relying on older voters to beat Sanders, she's relying specifically on African-American votes and the institutional support of labor unions. Both groups have their reasons for backing Clinton in 2016, but neither is a reliable supporter of centrist economics.
…
Black Democrats have more populist economic views
…
This is a winning formula for Hillary Clinton, but it's very much a personal formula tied to the specific circumstances of the 2016 race. Future candidates can't count on the same thing to work, since Clinton is fundamentally not representing the views of her coalition.

Labor unions mostly backed Clinton
…
That strategic thinking will be second-guessed by more ideological activists for years to come, but it was what it was. This is, however, another example of a pillar of Clinton's strength that Clintonism can't count on for the future. Unions will tend to use their influence to shift the party to the left (as they in fact have done in 2016) and may be more eager to back left-wing insurgents in the future.

Young people are very left-wing

Beyond all this, when you consider the 2024 or 2028 election cycles, a striking reality is that many of today's 70-somethings will be dead and most of today's 20-somethings will be 30-somethings. In that context, the breadth and depth of support for Sanders among the youngest cohort is striking.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/21/11273978/clinton-shaky-foundation

[Baobab]

1. Clinton = neolberalism = center right

n/t

[cheapdate]

2. Yes, on economic and foreign policy.

Center left on environment and equality issues.

[Baobab]

3. No, right wing - see below

http://www.ciel.org/news/ttip-leak-eu-proposal-undermines-democratic-values/

http://www.ciel.org/project-update/trans-atlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership-ttip/


Press Releases

TTIP Poised to Gut US States’ Ability to Protect on Toxic Chemicals (September 2015)

European Parliament’s TTIP Vote A Step Backward for Public Health (July 2015)

CIEL President & CEO Carroll Muffett responds to Fast Track vote in US House of Representatives (June 2015)

Statement by CIEL President & CEO Carroll Muffett on the Blocked “Fast Track” Trade Promotion Authority Bill (May 2015)

TTIP leak: EU proposal undermines democratic values (April 2015)

Lowest Common Denominator: EU-US trade deal threatens to lower standards of protection from toxic pesticides (January 2015)

CIEL Statement on release of TTIP chemicals documents by European Commission (November 2014)

Leaked TTIP draft for chemicals sector reveals a toxic partnership (October 2014)

TTIP crosses the line on toxic chemicals for 111 NGOs (July 2014)

Proposed Plans for US/EU Trade Deal Would Weaken Health, Consumer, Worker, Environmental Protections (May 2014)

Chemical industry secretly manipulating US-EU trade negotiations (March 2014)


Fact Sheets

“T” for Toxic? Seven things everyone should know about the EU-US trade negotiations (aka “TTIP” or TAFTA”) and chemical regulation (February 2014):

US Version
EU Version – English
EU Version – Francais
EU Version – Espanol
EU Version – Portugues


Related Blogs & Editorials

US States’ ability to protect from toxic chemicals under attack on two fronts (October 2015)

European Parliament Takes a Stand to Protect REACH (September 2015)

Crying Wolf on Chemical Reform (March 2015)

Lowest Common Denominator (January 2015)

Where’s your seat at the table? (January 2015)

EU holds public consultations on TTIP investment chapter (May 2014)

TTIP means trading away better regulation (March 2014)

Chemical Lobby proposes to reinvent and duplicate OECD Chemicals Program (March 2014)

Setting the record straight on TTIP? Yes, let’s. (March 2014)

The truth about the EU’s proposal on regulatory coherence (December
2013)

The Trans-Atlantic Regulatory Agreement (December 2013)

Fracking Dispute Under NAFTA Highlights Potential Pitfalls of EU-US Trade Agreement (October 2013)


Sign-On Letters

Letter to Mr.Bernd Lange, Member of the European Parliament, over concerns that TTIP could weaken current public health and environment standards for toxic chemicals and impede the development of new standards (May 2015)
Letter by 111 Organizations demanding exclusion of chemicals from TTIP negotiations (July 2014)
Civil society organizations express concerns over proposals for “regulatory cooperation” between the United States and European Union under the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (May 2014)
Opposition to the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement in the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (December 2013)



Testimony

Comments submitted on behalf of ClientEarth, CHEMTrust, Friends of the Earth US, NRDC, Sierra Club and CIEL on the scope of United States Trade Representative’s environmental review of TTIP regarding chemicals and regulatory coherence (September 2014)
Proposed Plans for US/EU Trade Deal Would Weaken Health, Consumer, Worker, Environmental Protections (May 2014)
CIEL Statement before the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, hearing on the “Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Achieving the Potential” (October 2013)
CIEL to Testify Before US House Committee on Energy & Commerce on Health and Environmental Risks of US-EU Free Trade Agreement (July 2013)
Statement and oral testimony of Carroll Muffett, President and CEO, Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), as delivered to the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommitee on Manufacturing Commerce and Trade (July 2013)






Share:
Related Content
Reports

Preempting the Public Interest: How TTIP will Limit US States’ Public Health and Environmental Protections (Sep 2015)
Lowest Common Denominator: How the proposed US-EU trade deal threatens to lower standards of protection from toxic pesticides (January 2015)
Toxic Partnership Revealed (CIEL/Climate Earth/NRDC) (October 2014)
Toward a Toxic Partnership: A critique of the EU position on chemicals under the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement with the US (ClientEarth & CIEL) (July 2014)
Statement of Carroll Muffett, CIEL President & CEO, “The US-EU Free Trade Agreement: Tipping over the Regulatory Barriers”, as delivered to the US House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommitee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade (May 2014)
Toxic Partnership: A critique of the ACC-CEFIC proposal for trans-Atlantic cooperation on chemicals (CIEL/Client Earth) (March 2014)
“T” for Toxic? Seven things everyone should know about the EU-US trade neotiations (aka “TTIP” or TAFTA”) and chemical regulation [US Version] (Tuncak) (February 2014)
Statement by CIEL President and CEO, on behalf of CIEL, Friends of the Earth & Sierra Club, to US House of Representatives Energy & Commerce Committee (July 24, 2013)
Statement and oral testimony of Carroll Muffett, CIEL President and CEO, as delivered to US House Energy & Commerce Committee Subcommitee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade (July 2013)
Oral comments at public hearing on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (May 29, 2013)
“Normal Operations of a Ship” under MARPOL (Orellana) (June 2012)

Share:
STAY INFORMED

CIEL
@ciel_tweets

Updates
Impacts
News

UN Guiding Principles on Business & Human Rights National Action Plan
Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)
Maastricht Principles on Extra-Territorial Obligations of States
[Read All]

[cheapdate]

5. I'm strongly opposed to the TPP,

and "globalization" in general for those and several other important reasons, and I have deep disagreements with Hillary Clinton in many important places.

But, despite all that and to her mild credit and in stark contrast to the GOP front runners, she at least recognizes the need for a functioning environmental regulatory agency, accepts that human induced climate change is real, and has an somewhat amicable relationship with mainstream environmental advocacy organizations.

I put her center-left.

[Baobab]

7. TTIP basically reduces the environmental regulations to the lowest common denominator

all the rest is irrelevant, as trade deals PREEMPT NATIONAL LAWS AND WISHES

Also the energy deal will heavily impact affordable housing potentially resulting in the loss of millions of postwar formerly public housing, ecase of gATS it can never be replaced, there cannot be any more public housing because of standstill, starting in 1995, have you seen any new public housing since 1995, no, why? because its GATS-illegal thats why.

So millions of people may have nowhere to go. They will be saved from high energy prices by being rendered homeless. there wont even be any green jobs building the replacement housing. That will likely go to third world firms as they are truly poor and its allowed to discriminate in their favor.

Energy must be deregulated, WTO says so. So the US will have to upgrade its housing stock, sorry.

See https://doughenwood.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/92392289-fitch-on-obama.pdf

Energy trade is part of the ongoing discussions within the TTIP talks.
Nondiscrimination for bilateral trade in raw materials and energy are among
the stated objectives of the European Union for the TTIP, see European
Commission (2013). A more detailed version of the EU position was leaked
in June 2014; for a brief analysis see “EU Pursues Strong Energy Chapter In
TTIP, Along The Lines Of Leaked Paper,”
Inside U.S. Trade
, June 5, 2014,
www.insidetrade.com (accessed on June 10, 2014).
See leaked document from the European Commission dated
May 27, 2014. See Lydia DePillis, “E.U. presses U.S. on oil-export ban,”
Washington Post
, July 9, 2014, A11.
3. See Josh Zumbrun, “Upshot of Domestic Oil Boom: Fewer Shocks,”
Wall
Street Journal
, June 18, 2014, A2

[Chan790]

12. Someday, the GOP is going to readopt their previous support of tariffs...

and run on FTA repeal and we're going to be fucked as a party.

It'll be a killer position that puts the Democratic party in the ground if we don't do something about it now.

No FTAs anymore forever!

[Baobab]

14. No, sorry, they are irreversible. It wont be possible once multinationals are involved,

it becomes hideously expensive. The whole point of the deals is to remove everything economic from the things politicians can change, even if its toxic chemicals, it becomes off limits for politics, federal state and local legislators cant fix it- Only all the countries geting together with thousands of industry lobbyists can.


Trade deals, once signed, and sometimes even before that, make (what you describe) financially impossible. because the taxpayers basically have to buy corporations out, suddenly, changing some law, requires millions or billions, to escape their clutches, a country would have to give them a huge amount -give them free money-

Even if its dangerous- often that doesn't matter, its *changing* something that triggers the need for a payment in advance- from all society.

[Chan790]

15. No.

Congress does not have the ability to enter into irreversible treaties or compacts, nor ratify any such agreement. If what you were describing were true...the multinationals would de-jure have no right to the money as the FTAs would be illegitimate and illegal under US law from the outset.

Basically, Congress cannot enter into any agreement they're not free to leave at any time without penalty. It's why Trump's platform including unilateral NATO withdrawal is slightly problematic...while Americans may not be keen on military pacts, we'd have a problem if we exercised our ability to walk out on our treaty. Nobody wants to be allies with someone that feels free to walk out on them at the drop of a hat.

Walking away from our FTAs would be equally problematic...but it cannot be restricted or illegal in the way you specify.

[Baobab]

8. What does TPP have to do with this, TPP is making drugs more expensive, IP, equal back doors, etc.

maybe some services in Pacific Rim countries.

There are at least six pending trade deals, three of which start with T one of them hastwo T-names TTIP/TAFTA, thats the one with government procurement also, so no more new deals, sorry. get an education if you want a job. A lot of the construction jobs, energy industry jobs will likely have to automate in order to compete with the low wages from the LDCs.

No more local sourcing, didnt you get the memo?

[Baobab]

4. Equality for foreign corporations, not people.

Equality for wages, between developing and developed country subcontractors?

Disciplines on domestic regulations

Lowest common denominator or highest common denominator minimum wages?

[MisterFred]

9. Only if you consider center-left to be not-Republican.

I'd consider Clinton conservative on equality issues, just not as crazy as the Republicans. She's an incredibly weak candidate on LGBT rights, for example. You can expect zero progress under her. I expect this as a result of her refusal to support LGBT issues, including marriage, until it's proven overwhelmingly popular with the electorate and other politicians have taken pro-LGBT stances and proved it won't hurt them politically. That and her religious-based arguments against LGBT rights pre-2013.

On environment, she has literally promised zero progress. Remember when she was promising solar power growth in a debate? The growth she promised is what would happen if the U.S. didn't change it's policy and did nothing more to encourage green energy. So there, again, if you want something done, Clinton is a pretty bad candidate.

[cheapdate]

10. Hillary Clinton doesn't share my deep environmental ethics or my "radical" tendencies.

But "no progress" is immanently preferable to "reversing progress". I'll vote for Hillary if she is the nominee over any of the GOP candidates.

[MisterFred]

11. Well yeah.

She's a reasonable conservative.

[Chan790]

13. ...and if that's not damnation with faint praise, nothing is. n/t

[Baobab]

6. partnership between developed countries and developing countries is a scam to take advantage of both

http://unctad.org/en/docs/ditctabpov20061_en.pdf