But as the president acknowledged, the protectionist sentiment he has long opposed appears to be rising in Congress -- and among the Democratic presidential candidates as well.
The House leadership cavalierly denied his request for the kind of "fast-track" negotiating authority that past presidents have enjoyed. That procedure limits Congress to an up-or-down vote on future trade deals, rather than rewriting them in detail.
As if that were not worrisome enough, the Democratic aspirants for president vied last week in their debate in Chicago to see who could be most irresponsible on trade issues.
This is why we can't have a serious, reasonable debate on trade; the field is dominated by a vocabulary that thinks the words "isolationist", "protectionist", and "cavalier" have any substantive meaning in the discussion. That Congress denied Bush fast-track authority is not the "cavalier" act of a "protectionist" Congress, but the reasoned response of Democrats refusing to give Bush any more authority than he should have (of course, they failed when it counted, on the wiretapping business, but that was another post). I am assuming that Broder is using the word "cavalier" in the sense of "not regarding the consequences" rather than tying it to its root as the French word for the English "knight" - with connotations of honor and consideration for others. In the latter sense, the Dems were acting "cavalierly"; in the former, they were not, and Broder's application of the epithet shows he really has no idea what in the world he's talking about.
This week's column is a love song to Mike Huckabee, who took second in the Iowa straw poll last week. By guess and by gosh, that must mean something other than the fact that he spent more money than anyone other than Mitt Romney. Broder sees Huckabee combining the "populism" (really fascism, but for Broder there is no difference) of Patrick Buchanan with the wiliness of Bill Clinton, who turned a second place finish in New Hampshire in to a win, carrying him through the southern primaries and on to the nomination and the Presidency. Of all the Republican candidates, Mike Huckabee comes with the least baggage, the smallest level of psychopathology, and the best antennae for the religious right. I believe that he would be the most formidable Republican candidate to face the Democrats, and could possibly eke out a victory as the Republican Clinton - fuzzy on rhetoric and slightly right of the middle of the road in policy. The major blogs are discussing Rudy and Mitt and Fred, but I do think Broder is on to something considering the possibility of Huckabee as an alternative as the big two and Hollywood Fred destroy one another with their lies, their sociopathy, and their laziness, respectfully. On the other hand, Broder seems to be a bit too fond of Huckabee, and a bit too taken with his second place win in last week's vote-shopping contest in Iowa. While it is possible the Republicans would defy recent history and nominate a formidable candidate, I think our current atmosphere is one in which even the moderately sane Huckabee doesn't stand much of a chance. He'll probably end up the Lamar! candidate of 2008. Broder's hand-holding is hardly a plus for someone wanting to run as an outsider, either.
