Rahm is crackling good copy.
The mayor of Chicago and former White House chief of staff knows politics from the street corner to the Oval Office. Possibly no one closer to President Obama knows trade politics better than Rahm Emanuel.
“It’s either tanks or cars,” Rahm says about simmering trade disputes dividing Obama and congressional Democrats.
Hizzoner has no formal role in trade talks or the coming trade arm-twisting. But he’s at the political and policy intersection of the reimagined American urban economy and thinking critically about ways that once-dying manufacturing cities can compete in the global economy. I heard him deliver a speech nearly a year ago when he declared that in the next 100 years, much of the world’s history will be written by the world’s biggest cities. Not nation-states, not regions, not continents. Cities. Anyone familiar with Rahm’s sense of self could unwisely ascribe this to his Energizer Bunny egoism. Of course, cities — therefore Chicago, therefore Rahm — would determine the future of the planet.
Subtract egoism, however, and he may still be correct. It is entirely possible that the most important innovations dealing with urban planning, pollution, water use, health care, poverty, taxation, transportation, and crime will come, and may have to come, from cities grappling with enormous and concentrated populations. In the past five years, the world’s urban population has grown by 380 million.
Even if this trajectory flattens, cities will have to meet a vast array of complex needs, chief among them creating jobs.
The mayor was in D.C. to celebrate the awarding of a federal contract to create a new manufacturing hub in Chicago: $70 million in Defense Department seed money added to $240 million in private investment from Fortune 100 companies and venture-capital firms. The goal is to expand digital manufacturing research in Chicago and at the University of Illinois.
“This is an Olympic gold,” said Emanuel, still smarting from the Windy City’s loss of its summer Olympics bid for 2016. “This allows you to create an economic energy and a magnet that will bring in research-and-development facilities from companies that don’t have ‘em in Chicago.”
Synergy was a 1990s word that fueled a tech boom and some profitable stock options. Then it became a bumper sticker for morons. The word isn’t necessarily coming back, but the concept is.
“It’s jobs, it’s investment, it’s patents, it’s new businesses,” Rahm told me. “It’s a huge economic opportunity. This brings brains and brawn together like nothing else. Companies today want their manufacturing and their research and development to have things fresh off the shelf that are new.”
These products will need buyers. That means an export market. I asked the Democratic mayor about congressional opposition to Obama’s push for Trade Promotion Authority (fast track) as a prelude to a final deal on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Rahm wanted to argue that the opposition is bipartisan. Intellectually, it is. But as he well knows (he advised President Clinton on the North American Free Trade Agreement and Obama on deals with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama), Republicans in the House and Senate will provide a vast majority of votes for TPA. House Speaker John Boehner has asked Obama for 50 House Democratic votes but could probably pass TPA with slightly fewer.
Rahm knows the problem is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, both of whom have told Obama to back off (which he has). Emanuel’s message: national security.
“You look at Asia today,” he said. “We have allies from Australia, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Indonesia, South Korea. Everybody in the Joint Chiefs supports it. Why do they support it? “˜Cause it’s either tanks or cars. And I’d rather be exporting cars than trying to figure out how we’re gonna move tanks over there or send five [aircraft] carriers there.”
In an era of defense cuts and a smaller Army, Emanuel sees free trade as the way around big defense budgets and dead-end weapons systems.
“Those are our allies around that are part of the Asia Pacific. If they’re economically tied to the United States, it’s in our national security interest. Trade is a good thing if you do everything else right.”
The White House is trying. In a very important but largely overlooked speech on Feb. 18, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman told the Center for American Progress (the White House policy and political sounding board) that more progressive voices would be added to trade negotiations. Froman duly noted, because USTR keeps numbers like these, that there have been more than 1,150 separate trade consultations with Congress. He even dryly mentioned that USTR staff conducted 18 briefings with lawmakers — drum roll, please — on a snow day.
But Froman and the White House know that Democrats remain unmoved: They want more voices at or near the negotiations and more transparency about environmental and labor requirements. Yes, Obama says he’s committed to baking these issues into the negotiating cake. Democrats don’t trust Obama. They want inside the trade kitchen.
To that end, Froman announced, the Commerce Department will revive dormant trade advisory committees to gather more progressive input. He also said the administration would create the Public Interest Trade Advisory Committee to join the standing Labor Advisory Committee as a place where progressives can learn more about trade negotiations and offer input. Democrats have long complained of being outnumbered by industry-backed groups working with USTR.
Obama fought for TPA in the State of the Union and was rebuffed. Froman huddled with progressives and lawmakers who could eventually be supportive, but not without more voices at the table and more transparency in the process. Froman knows the Left will never be entirely placated. He also knows it doesn’t need to be. Obama just needs to get enough votes at the margins to win TPA approval after the midterm elections. Meeting the demands of liberals, or at least being seen as trying to, is the new formula for TPA and the Asia and Europe deals.
It also probably won’t be long before White House officials themselves start saying, “It’s either tanks or cars.”
The author is National Journal correspondent-at-large and chief White House correspondent for CBS News. He is also a distinguished fellow at the George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs.
What We're Following See More »
Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:
- Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
- Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
- They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
- One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”
At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”