Well told, brother Yuval. I've got my own take on the misguided desire for "centrist" policies that's been bubbling to the surface for the past few days, which you almost preempted.

Matt Yglesias has been particularly egregious in his attempts to prove his centrist street cred on trade, apparently unaware--again!--that the Center has uncritically accepted a whole bunch of ideas that just aren't true. DeLong, on the other hand, really believes in this stuff. I can at least listen to him; it's not just an affected pose of contrarianism, as virtually everything is with Mr. Y.

Just why is this ideological debate coming out NOW, with Dean taking over the DNC??

Is it to undermine him? As I commented over at MyDD, this debate is completely irrelevant as long as the right wing controls all the organs of the federal goverment and almost all of the media. The job is to tack back our government, as Dean knows.

So again, the DLC types are more interested in infighting than it winning power.

Look at Argentena - they are ignoring "free trade" and it's working out much better for them.

I too believe in freer trade (which isnt the same as free trade) most of the time. Too many of the Democratic party anti-trade moves are demonstrably pandering to particular interest groups to the detriment of everyone else. However, my bottom line on this is that it is always a mistake to talk in generalities on this topic. No progress is ever made when people simply restate theoretical positions over and over. The truth is in the numerical details of each case and each case is different. Sometimes we (or some of us anyway) will be made better off by moves toward freer trade and sometimes not. You would have a tough time saying that the increasing trade of the past 50 years has made everyone poorer - the data just dont support that view (though again, you can always find a counterexample to any such economic statement - thus keeping the debate going round and round)

Two points about the comments above:

1. Argentina is a REALLY BAD case to point to if you are trying to promote an anti-free trade position. TO do it you have to look ONLY at the last two years and ignore the entire twentieth century.

2. I have exactly the same question as Alan S. Why now? I have to be suspicious when someone brings up an ideological debate that can never be won when argued on a general level - They would seem to be simply trying to brand their enemies as retrograde or anti-world cooperation or I dont know what. The purpose isnt to actually get freer trade - its to get a political upper hand on someone.

Well told, brother Steve Kyle. I'm not doctrinaire in opposing open trade; but as you note, one must shun generalizations.

Where freer trade serves the greater good, we should support it--without a priori assumptions that this is the case. Where the greater good might suffer, we should avoid it.

and what did the free trade debate have to do with iraq? i think i must have missed something

Steve,

The point I was trying to make is that many of the staunch liberal proponents of globalization don't realize (or don't want to realize) that the way free trade is implemented on the ground is far different from the ideal they envision, just like the liberal hawks like Tom Friedman and Paul Berman failed to recognize that the Iraq war was being fought for less-than-noble purposes, however beneficial the removal of the Hussein regime appeared.

It has to do with the way that the "reasonable" elements in our party keep selectively signing on to certain parts of the GOP agenda, without thinking about the fact that the administration simply can't be trusted.

I understood your point, Yuval and I'm very grateful that you wrote this post since I was starting to think I was nuts for opposing free trade - or at least the ridiculous parody of free trade that we have now.

I also think that it makes sense to tie Iraq to free trade since is was invaded and occupied to fulfill a neocon fantasy of laissez-faire economy.