In his interview with President Obama, Matt Bai hits on what he thinks might be motivating the president's inexplicable enthusiasm for the TPP trade deal, against the wishes of his own party and voters:
[Obama said] "I think what’s also attracting attention is the fact that we might actually get this done."
That last part struck me as most significant in understanding why Obama is willing to risk long-standing alliances for a trade deal that probably seems tangential to most Americans. Although he would never put it this way, his second term has mostly been an exercise in futility. He announced 16 months ago that he had essentially given up on trying to legislate and would try to govern around the margins instead, using executive actions that stretch the boundaries of presidential power and probably won’t stand up over time.
His prospects for passing any kind of larger agenda went from slim to nearly nonexistent last November, when he got a brand-new Republican Senate to go along with an obstreperous Republican House. And with a chaotic presidential campaign about to start in earnest, any real governing from here on out will be purely accidental.
The trade deal, though, represents a rare and probably final opportunity for Obama to accomplish something big, and something in which he’s deeply invested. A lot of Republican free traders will actually support it, no matter how distasteful they find the idea of standing on the same side as the president. Some Democrats will, too — the question is how many.
If Obama can’t get fast-track authority through Congress, he won’t have much chance at negotiating a final deal. But if he can, then he might well be able to claim one last, major legislative victory — and the only one in his presidency with broad, bipartisan support. And not only that, but a victory that gets back to the promise inherent in his first presidential campaign — the promise to adapt American liberalism to the economic realities of the 21st century, without simply bowing before capital or raging against it.
To a president eyeing his legacy, that kind of victory is worth a lot, even if it costs him some friends.
Adapt American liberalism to the economic realities of the 21st century, without simply bowing before capital or raging against it?
What does that even mean?
Does it mean adapting liberalism to accept pitting workers in developed countries against those in countries like Vietnam who make 56 cents an hour?
Does it mean adapting liberalism to accept foreign corporations being allowed to challenge laws that protect the public's health, food safety, environment, and so on, in front of private tribunals run by corporate lawyers?
Does it mean adapting liberalism to accept monopolies being granted to pharmaceutical, entertainment, and other well-connected corporations in the form of extended patents, reducing public access to cheaper generic drugs and cultural works in the public domain?
Sounds to me more like getting liberalism to, as he says, bow to capital.
And that's the kind of legacy a Democratic president really wants to leave to history?
Shameful if true.
When we voted for change, we meant change for the better, change toward better living and working conditions for average people, not just change for change's sake, so that politicians could say they left their mark.