Guess Who's Now an Anti-Globalist. Phyllis SCHLAFLY

[UTUSN]

She was on the local radio wingnut talkshow this morning sounding a lot (on this topic) like what is heard here.

******QUOTE*****
http://www.eagleforum.org/

Blasting globalism (jobs): http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2037450
Phyllis Schlafly warned a group of about 300 fellow conservatives Thursday that creeping globalism threatens jobs and the high standard of living in the United States. ....

Among Schlafly's concerns are two types of visas Congress enacted that help multinational corporations bring professional workers into this country who will accept lower-paying jobs than Americans.

She also criticized federal laws that help corporations transfer jobs to other countries, where workers are often paid one-tenth the salaries of Americans. ....

Archived: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/archive.shtml

Globalism changing Constitution: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/ps20030811.shtml
We live in a global economy, right? But the elites mouthing this mantra haven't shared with the U.S. people the news that globalism not only means open borders for the movement of goods and the migration of peoples, but also textbooks teaching children to be citizens of the world instead of patriots.

Globalism also means bending the U.S. Constitution to conform to the opinions of foreigners who pompously enunciate new laws and new human rights. The utterings of these self-important bureaucrats in the United Nations and Europe could be merely matters for TV humor if it were not that U.S. Supreme Court Justices Steven G. Breyer, Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens take them seriously. ....

*****UNQUOTE****

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. Why are the Democrats letting the Republicans steal this issue?

It's the "left" that's been fighting corporate globalization for years, and we are going to let Republicans "win" the issue with some rhetoric? What a horrible strategic mistake.

Come on Clark, Gephardt, Edwards - catch up to Kucinich already, he's the real leader here.

[Isome]

2. The same way...

We allowed them to lay claim to family values. We can't continue to act spineless, unless we enjoy being marginalized.

What the hell is Phyllis doing out of the house anyway? Doesn't she know only crass feminists, or femi-nazis, would dare act knowledgeable and hold an opinion about what's going on in the world around them?

[SharonAnn]

3. Is that crone still running around loose? Sheeesh, I had to

listen to her 40 years ago (conservative boyfriend) and thought she was nuts then. I just didn't know enoug about the issues to know exactly why she was nuts or what she was nuts about. Fortunately, I figured out not too much later.

I'm surprised she's still alive.

[Warpy]

4. All feminists want their daughters

...to have lives like Schlafly's, minus the puckerfaced propaganda.

Schlafly doesn't want any other women to enjoy her life of privilege and adventure. She wants all other women pregnant in summer, barefoot in winter, and chained to the kitchen stove, ready to do the master's bidding, so poor Phyllis won't have to face any competition.

You don't think right wing harpies would ever practice what they preach for the rest of us, do you?

[Aidoneus]

5. a bit much to expect..

no Democratic politician would dare to oppose monopoly capitalism or the worldwide imperialist interventions that make the oligarchal globalization possible. Maybe some mealymouthed reformist phrase or two that won't amount to much, some vague references to creating jobs and "fixing the economy", as if something other than a massive enema could do the latter.

well, maybe Kucinich if he's talking to a left audience, by now there's probably nothing new that Rushites can insult him with so there's no need to hold back from telling the truth.

This conservative "anti-globalist" approaches it from the nationalistic perspective, quite different from the left-internationalist opposition.

[StandWatie]

6. from 1848..

To sum up, what is free trade, what is free trade under the present condition of society? It is freedom of capital. When you have overthrown the few national barriers which still restrict the progress of capital, you will merely have given it complete freedom of action. So long as you let the relation of wage labor to capital exist, it does not matter how favorable the conditions under which the exchange of commodities takes place, there will always be a class which will exploit and a class which will be exploited. It is really difficult to understand the claim of the free-traders who imagine that the more advantageous application of capital will abolish the antagonism between industrial capitalists and wage workers. On the contrary, the only result will be that the antagonism of these two classes will stand out still more clearly.

Let us assume for a moment that there are no more Corn Laws or national or local custom duties; in fact that all the accidental circumstances which today the worker may take to be the cause of his miserable condition have entirely vanished, and you will have removed so many curtains that hide from his eyes his true enemy.

He will see that capital become free will make him no less a slave than capital trammeled by customs duties.

Gentlemen! Do not allow yourselves to be deluded by the abstract word freedom. Whose freedom? It is not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but the freedom of capital to crush the worker.

Why should you desire to go on sanctioning free competition with this idea of freedom, when this freedom is only the product of a state of things based upon free competition?

We have shown what sort of brotherhood free trade begets between the different classes of one and the same nation. The brotherhood which free trade would establish between the nations of the Earth would hardly be more fraternal. To call cosmopolitan exploitation universal brotherhood is an idea that could only be engendered in the brain of the bourgeoisie. All the destructive phenomena which unlimited competition gives rise to within one country are reproduced in more gigantic proportions on the world market. We need not dwell any longer upon free trade sophisms on this subject, which are worth just as much as the arguments of our prize-winners Messrs. Hope, Morse, and Greg.

For instance, we are told that free trade would create an international division of labor, and thereby give to each country the production which is most in harmony with its natural advantage.

You believe, perhaps, gentlemen, that the production of coffee and sugar is the natural destiny of the West Indies.

Two centuries ago, nature, which does not trouble herself about commerce, had planted neither sugar-cane nor coffee trees there.

And it may be that in less than half a century you will find there neither coffee nor sugar, for the East Indies, by means of cheaper production, have already successfully combatted his alleged natural destiny of the West Indies. And the West Indies, with their natural wealth, are already as heavy a burden for England as the weavers of Dacca, who also were destined from the beginning of time to weave by hand.

One other thing must never be forgotten, namely, that, just as everything has become a monopoly, there are also nowadays some branches of industry which dominate all others, and secure to the nations which most largely cultivate them the command of the world market. Thus in international commerce cotton alone has much greater commercial than all the other raw materials used in the manufacture of clothing put together. It is truly ridiculous to see the free-traders stress the few specialities in each branch of industry,throwing them into the balance against the products used in everyday consumption and produced most cheaply in those countries in which manufacture is most highly developed.

If the free-traders cannot understand how one nation can grow rich at the expense of another, we need not wonder, since these same gentlemen also refuse to understand how within one country one class can enrich itself at the expense of another.

Do not imagine, gentlemen, that in criticizing freedom of trade we have the least intention of defending the system of protection.

One may declare oneself an enemy of the constitutional regime without declaring oneself a friend of the ancient regime.

Moreover, the protectionist system is nothing but a means of establishing large-scale industry in any given country, that is to say, of making it dependent upon the world market, and from the moment that dependence upon the world market is established, there is already more or less dependence upon free trade. Besides this, the protective system helps to develop free trade competition within a country. Hence we see that in countries where the bourgeoisie is beginning to make itself felt as a class, in Germany for example, it makes great efforts to obtain protective duties. They serve the bourgeoisie as weapons against feudalism and absolute government, as a means for the concentration of its own powers and for the realization of free trade within the same country.

But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/01/09ft.htm#marx

nothing ever changes....

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

9. wow, quite eye opening

That was Marx? I was never a big fan, but that essay was spot on.

[w4rma]

11. One right-wing talk show host gives lip service to this problem

and the Republican Party is steeling our issue?

Left-wing commentators have been railing on this for decades, at least. Gephardt and Kuchinich are both totally opposed to free trade agreements. Dean and Edwards are both for reforming the free trade agreements to help protect American workers and small buisnesses.

A huge speech from Dean which includes a section on trade and jobs (starting at about 7:10 and in more depth at about 25:00):
http://www.wordsandgraphics.com/dean080703-audio.mov

Bush is totally in favor of any and all free trade agreements or any other laws that help the top 1% of wealthy Americans and their megamultinationals.

Republicans are NOT stealing this issue. And, IMHO, your saying that only confuses folks into thinking that maybe Republicans aren't as bad as they really are.

[Generic Other]

7. This may be the one issue that unites all sides

And that's what really scares the power elite. They try and divide us up as liberal and conservative hoping that a lot of people will be fooled to act outside their own interest.

It's class warfare. Rich v. All of the rest of us.

How do we capitalize on this window of opportunity?

[UTUSN]

8. Kick for an Answer n/t

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

10. A Debate between Kucinich and Buchanan?

Moderated by Ross Perot :)

[greekspeak]

12. Funny...Schlafly was one of the first right wing kooks of whom I knew

The Springfield (MO) News-Leader has a number of "frequent fliers" on its op-ed pages. One is a fascist kook who is a member of "Concerned Women of America." From this woman's pen flowed some of the most absurd, soul-chilling right wing schlock you have ever read. From what I have heard come out of Phyllis's mouth, that's par for the course. CWAers basically want to scare women back to the kitchen where THEY think women belong. I am certainly glad that women everywhere have good sense to laugh off their Draconian demands. Funny how Phyllis and her ilk hypocritically shun the very demands they make on other women.