The source is irrelevant

Trump is correct when he calls for ripping up trade agreements such as NAFTA and renegotiating them in a way that benefits US workers more.

And the US Chamber of Commerce is correct in saying that it will cost jobs…in the short term (Corasaniti, 2016).

Trump is many things.  And whatever his true agenda it’s one that differs from Mr. Sanders’ agenda fundamentally.  In fact if someone were to ask me Trump’s agenda I wouldn’t know how to answer. 

Trump’s “why” doesn’t interest me. 

But one can speculate:  as a spoiler in this election, when Trump says things which are true it could be a contrived means of pushing many Americans toward the moderate republican ideas of Mrs. Clinton.  People’s natural revulsion to Trump translates to people gravitating toward the opposite of what he says without thinking. 

When Mr. T says we should tear up global trade deals which for three decades have drained this country of jobs, leaving mostly service and low paying jobs in their wake, and leaving automated manufacturing jobs and weakened unions he is absolutely correct. 

Bernie supporters recognize this as resonate of what Bernie says.   

Yet again, I  have to emphasize this:  people’s disgust of Trump translates to people gravitating toward any words that sound different than his. 

And that would be a mistake. This is how Mrs. Clinton would steal independent voters from both Trump and Sanders and win by a seeming landslide and mandate, heralding in a new era of global trade deals, dwindling jobs and salaries, budgetary crises, and endless warfare over dwindling oil sales amid a cornucopia of arms deals.

Mrs. Clinton is for global trade deals.  Mrs. Clinton said NAFTA didn’t perform as the writers would have liked it to (as far as helping bring back jobs to the US—but it was never designed to do that, let’s face it).  In contrast, a significant portion of US citizens are against putting more of these trade deals in place which have historically favored rich investors and corporations, cost jobs, lowered wages, and which Noam Chomsky calls "Investor Rights Agreements” instead of Free Trade Agreements.  Yet Mrs. Clinton, with the full might of the Democratic National Committee and the global corporate media backing her and spinning her agenda to seem somehow as progressive as Bernie Sanders’ agenda is now justified in saying she will pass TPP when it measures up to her standards when she is viewed through the visceral and emotional lens of people’s revulsion of Mr. Trump. 

Again, this is the wrong reaction. 

It’s like being herded into a canyon with no way out. 

Mrs. Clinton is backed by many deep pocketed concerns.  She is rumored to be endorsed by the Koch brothers, former vice president Richard Cheney, and Wall Street.    We can say definitively she is not backed by 45% of registered democrats in the US; and she is not backed by independents.  But if people act on the emotion of revulsion against Mr. Trump, they will instinctually back Clinton even though she is against their interests.  It will be an gut response.  And Mrs. Clinton will tell the US people that this is her mandate:  “Trump wanted to tear up the trade deals; I have a more reasonable solution of making them more protective of jobs and manufacturing in the US.” 

This of course would be contrary to Mrs. Clinton’s backers; and a set up for someone twenty years down the line to say “The TPP didn’t perform like we wanted it to…” We must assume that any deals Mrs. Clinton negotiates, and any “high bar” she sanctions must favor her deep pocketed backers and not the American worker.  We only can speculate on how much her backers have supported her:  a close look at the donors to the Clinton foundation would probably be very revealing as to where Mrs. Clinton and her husband’s loyalties lie; and who would most benefit from their efforts.

The US Chamber of Commerce is also correct:  If we renegotiate our trade deals and dismiss any further global trade deals, it will affect jobs in the short term.  Key phrase “in the short term.”  I’m no economist but I do know that any realignment of the economy will have an adjustment period.  We are accustomed to adjusting in a downward way since the nineteen eighties.  Nonetheless with an end to trade deals we will be faced with the choice of enacting a US jobs stimulus package to fuel the economy, which is in line with Mr. Sanders’ vision again.  While this won’t be overnight, it seems to me it would be moving us in a more upward direction.

Trump is correct in saying we need to tear up our global trade deals; and not ratify anymore.  His braggadocio, his Machiavellian disregard of the vulnerable, his lack of experience in government affairs disqualify him for office.  But he’s not dumb.  And the US Chamber of Commerce is correct in saying jobs would be affected in the short term.  But in a good way in the long term is the part they leave out.    An end to global trade deals might be one of many ways to stimulate the flow of money back to the many instead of ever upward to the few.

One of Mr. Sanders’ trademarks as an independent in Congress for three decades is that he’s had to dialogue and work with many Representatives and Senators with opposing views and with loyalties to strong pocketed billionaires and corporations.  He’s had to work with congress-people backed by powerful global entities, and who don’t always play fair.  This not only takes a great deal of courage to stand alone in the body of congress backed by powers that influence the media and therefore public opinion at any given time and can motivate public opinion through the media even against you; but it also takes the ability to see where the other person is right, despite their backing or agenda.  And understanding that they can be correct for the wrong reasons, be they manipulative or just naïve.  In this manner I suppose the truth can never be used to manipulate you when you are willing to see where the other person is right.  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/us/politics/donald-trump-us-chamber-of-commerce-trade.html

Bernie Sanders is constantly gracious to his opponents and counterparts in the congress.  And he knows the value of using whatever point of view is right toward his focused agenda which is to benefit the needs of the many in this country, into the future. 

That is the independent spirit. 

Sanders provides a powerful example for us to follow on how to be successful as independents and progressives by acknowledging what is right, while calling out bigotry and hatred, warmongering and profiteering.  And while using the truth to move toward the ideals which we are focusing on and refining:  End the trade deals that benefit the few.  Vote for a congress that will stand up as Bernie is teaching us to stand.

 

Corasaniti, N. (2016, June 29). Donald Trump assails U.S. Chamber of Commerce over trade. Retrieved from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/us/politics/donald-trump-us-chamber-of-commerce-trade.html?_r=0