Dave Sirota is absolutely right that populism sells. No question. And that's why I think one of the Democrats' best chances to win in 2008 would be to nominate someone who can effectively run against the powers that be (I can't be the only one who can easily imagine "Spitzer! Spitzer! Spitzer!" chanted by throngs of thousands - though sadly that seems unlikely to happen at a party convention in '08). But just because populism sells, that doesn't mean that it's good public policy. Have part's of Ohio's economy suffered of late? Sure. But NAFTA is hardly the only cause. And this sort of knee-jerk, let's-wall-up-the-borders invective isn't going to solve the country's trade problems. Trade issues are far too complicated to suggest that free trade is inherently "good" or "bad" - though from the perspective of the US government most economists are likely to say that if one has to choose between one extreme or the other, on balance, it's good.
Sirota is correct to note that policies could be improved. But blocking this nomination is not the way to do it.
And besides if any foreign policy nomination should be denied right now it's Bolton's not Portman's. Just today 59 retired diplomats urged the Senate not to confirm him as UN Ambassador. Expending political capital on this fight makes more sense - on both substantive and political grounds. For more on Bolton, you should regularly check The Washington Note.
Posted by armand at March 28, 2005 09:56 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Politics