At 09:02 AM 12/3/97 -0600, William Lear wrote:
>Who is "you"? Could you insert the person's name to whom you are
>responding? It makes following the thread a bit easier.
Sorry. This is a shortcoming of my mail application.
>>>Not all of the Reform Party positions are compatible with
>>>progressive populism. But progressive populists ought to work with the
>>>Reformers on common issues such as opening the ballot to alternative
>>>parties, campaign finance reform, fair trade laws and encouraging small
>>>farmers, small businesses and American manufacturing.
>>
>>Excuse me, but if the "progressive populist" movement has not enough
>>moral imagination to oppose free trade agreements and the MAI because
>>of the destitution these policies/laws/institutions wreak upon workers
>>and peasants in "developing countries," and instead gets all up in arms
>>embattled textile firms in the Piedmonts and gracious U.S. "sovereingty,"
>>then I don't see much difference between "progressive populism" and
>>Buchanan's crypto-fascism, or other crypto-fascisms in Europe.
>
>All this righteous anger might be better directed at someone who
>actually does not oppose free trade agreements. From the quote you
>are responding to, "you" mentions "fair trade laws", exactly the
>opposite (according to my reading of Tom Athanasiou's book) of "free"
>trade.
I deliberately intended to critique this proponent (i.e. the author
of the article, who is the same person who issued the e-mail)
of so-called fair trade, b/c it is my belief that they oppose so-called free
trade for all the wrong (provincial and yes, protectionist) reasons.
John Gulick
Ph. D. Candidate
Sociology Graduate Program
University of California-Santa Cruz
(415) 643-8568
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
