Slate’s Jacob Weisberg hangs a new title on the wave of Democratic congressional winners–economic nationalists. These folks campaigned on “reactionary” economic issues–limiting free trade and outsourcing, and managing illegal immigration. Weisberg believes, however, that these “nationalists” want to strike a blow not against big business, but against the poor of the world.

Come again?

Weisberg is a supporter of “creative destruction”–the economic philosophy that says you cannot make wine without smashing a few grapes (side note: everyone’s favorite TV show, the West Wing, dealt with this very issue, and oh boy, did it bother me). To his credit, Weisberg understands that President Clinton’s efforts in the 1990s failed because no one ever attempted the second half of the economic program–the care and retraining of workers displaced by outsourcing and free trade. Of course, Weisberg’s history lesson ends there, ignoring the rather rich tradition of Democratic resistence to big business.

Weisberg never picks up his original premise again–that a vote for our workers is a vote against the poor of the world–though he mentions the apparent prejudice of protectionists:

For some reason, economic nationalists never seem to complain about job-killing Dutch or Irish competition. The targets of their anger are consistently China and Mexico, with occasionally whacks at Dubai, Oman, Peru, and Vietnam.

Perhaps that because one must go to a boutique shop to purchase Irish or Dutch wares? Sorry, I don’t buy it. Yes, “Buy American” has a certain nationalist ring to it, but the benefits of a national economy that actually produces things could be enjoyed by all (we are, by the way, primarily producers of services these days). Weisberg seems to think that in our global economy (and yes, despite what anyone tells you, we are a part of a global economy), we must be more concerned about spreading the wealth abroad instead of spreading it within our borders.

So, yes, maybe we (well, other people) have ushered in a wave of reactionary Democrats. I say that’s a good thing. These congressional representatives want to do their jobs–protecting the interests of the people that elected them. How is that a bad thing?

Posted on 9 November 2006