Some time back, I mentioned a NPR report on how recent hanger tariffs help Wisconsin businesses. That was almost two months ago and today I see the story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

JS Online:
There, a hanger plant that closed as the Chinese came to dominate the market has reopened, with management in the process of hiring 20 workers to add a second shift.

“Thank goodness the tariff is in place,” said Jeff Bosen, manager of the plant that is owned by Shanti Industries Inc. of Foothill Ranch, Calif. Without it, “we’d be shutting the plant down.”

As more and more hangers came from China, U.S. plants began to close until only one, M&B Products Co. in Leeds, Ala., remained open. It started the case that eventually led to the tariffs. They were imposed on “wire garment hangers, fabricated from carbon steel,” which were being sold for “less than fair value,” according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. The tariff is from 33.85% to 221.05%, depending on what Chinese plant made the hangers.

What is deceptive about the Journal piece is the “sky rocketing” costs are because dry cleaners  are still buying from China. It seems to me a business man or women paying 10 cents more for a shirt or blouse is a good trade off to having family supporting jobs in Wisconsin. As Jeff Bosen points out he would be able to increase shifts if it wasn’t for the scrap metal shortage.

For a reason only a banana republic could understand, we cheaply sell to China our scrap metal, and then they flood our market with cheap goods.  It seems to me a much more self reliant approach would be using those raw materials for “America First”, and only sell China the excess materials. It is clear from this article that American hanger companies are unable to get American scrap metal because we are giving it to China.

So who do you stand with, laundry mats wanting cheap, below market, Chinese hangers, or the Wisconsin hanger companies offering family supporting jobs.

I feel like I deserve a shirt, I Survived Blog Bunker. As you can see from my talking points, socialism was not on the list of topics I was expecting. While I certainly do not mind defending “socialism”, I wish I had a heads up on it before hand.

We talked about socialism, Nader, spoiling, ballot access, and talking white.  Overall a decent compromise on topics.

Socialism: The big idea I was trying to get across is socialism = economic democracy. The American  experience of democratic rights stops at the workplace.  While not necessarily “mainstream” , I do not see this as radical by any means. I was actually surprised when he said I was the first socialist he ever met, like I was an historical relic of some sort.

Nader: I was taken back by his disdain for Nader. He was offended by the “talking white” comment. The point I was trying to make was if Nader said “talking corporate”, the corporate media would have ignored the story.

Spoiling: I think I made my point with the “slave plantation” metaphor.  In short, one can only argue that Nader spoiled in 2000 if you believe voters are slaves belonging to the duopoly, rather than freemen making rational political choices. All those Nader voters “spoiled” because they had the audacity to leave the Democratic planation.

Ballot Access: The point I was trying to make was we have a separation of “church and state”, why not also have a seperation of “party and state”.  I used the experience of Green Party members in Illinois as an example. In the recent primary they were told they had run out of Green Party ballots. Some members found ballots in the trash, and under registration papers. When the state party selected candidates to run for office the Illinois Election Commission took them off the ballot.  This is just one example of obstacles the duopoly puts up to keep third parties off the ballot. There are two fundamental ways to suppress the vote; put up voter obstacles and put up candidate obstacles. While Democrats are the first to cry about voter obstacles such as voter ID, they are the first ones to put up voter obstacles through ballot access laws.

Yes, Nader said that in an interview with Rocky Mountain News.

There’s only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He’s half African-American. Whether that will make any difference, I don’t know. I haven’t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What’s keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn’t want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We’ll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards.

The Obama campaign called the remarks “downright delusional and reprehensible.” The Nader campaign responded,

Obama’s abstract campaign has been delusional and irresponsible when it comes to avoiding concrete policies that truly defend and empower the 100 million Americans living in poverty or near poverty.

The Caucus referred to Nader’s comments as racially inflammatory. Nader seems right on from my perspective.   Maybe he should have avoided the word crackdown but that  hardly makes him a racist. Its about time Obama is taken to task for health care, sub prime mortgages, and voting against interest rate caps. At least Nader’s comments put real issues front and center.

It looks like the campaign chatter continues. Obama accuses Nader of “not paying attention to his speeches”. The cynic could ask, which one, because he probably said two different things. In The Swamp, Nader further clarifies what he means by white.

Whether in the form of the corporate power structure or many of the super-rich — who are taking advantage of 100 million low-income Americans who are suffering in poverty or near poverty.

What is clear here is Nader is using “whiteness” to refer to a power relationship not a racial one.  Obama is “talking white” is synonymous to “talking corporate”. We all know if Nader came out and said Obama is “talking corporate” the corporate news media would have went on their merry way. In order for the corporate media to pay attention Nader was required to translate it into “racial terms”. In the end this probably says more about the racial centric corporate media than anything else.

The facts remain, if “acting white” or “acting corporate”, Obama has sold out the American people on health care, energy, and sub prime interest rates. Let’s not forget if Obama did not vote a against a 30% cap, which is too high in itself,  the financial crisis of sub prime lending would never have occurred.  I do not think you can argue on one hand that the diasaterous policy of sub prime lending has hurt the African American community the most, and then on other hand give Obama a pass on voting against the 30% cap. If that’s not “acting white” in both senses of the word, I don’t know what is.

On Thursday, June 26, I will be interviewed by Blog Bunker at 4:00 pm central time. Blog Bunker is on Indie Talk -Sirius 110. Blog Bunker is a daily hour long show at 5:00 pm eastern which interviews bloggers from across the political spectrum. The topics I suggested were Ralph Nader, spoiler myth, lesser evilism. and instant runoff voting. Here are my thoughts on the subjects.

Ralph Nader: I support the candidacy of Ralph Nader. Last month, I outlined why I support Nader in a post titled Why Nader Beats Team McCain/Obama. The reasons include principled stances on trade, voting reform, immigration, corporate accountability, green energy, health care, Iraq, and Middle East peace. The determining issues in my support for Ralph Nader are economic populist in nature; NAFTA, WTO, living wage, single payer health care, corporate accountability, and economic democracy. I must admit with the recent death of George Carlin, he made a great case for not voting, but chances are I will vote for Nader on election day.

Spoiler Myth: Ralph Nader has discussed the hundreds of excuses why Gore lost in 2000. The most rational excuse includes the Socialist Workers Party (562) who got the exact number of votes the Democrats needed to win Florida. The point is that these are not reasons, rational explanations, but excuses. If I stubbed my toe on a door, my excuse could be it was cloudy, or that even the door moved. I may even retaliate against the door by kicking it, but the door is not the reason for my stubbed toe. Excuses tend to be used to deflect personal responsibility. What the “Nader excuse” has allowed the Democrats to do is deflect any internal defects from the party itself, which is why in 08 we have a candidate who is just as, if not more, corporate than in 2000.

Lesser-Evilism: In a discussion of lesser evilism we need to distinguish the personal from the political. On a personal level we all make a preference that A is better than B, C, or D. In that sense we are all lesser evil voters.

Yet, there is this other lesser evilism which is used as a fear tactic to increase voter disenfranchisement. All of our national elections are plurality based which discourages multiple political parties. The Democrats love exploiting this aspect of our electoral system because they can use fear to get votes. They can “scare” both voters and third party candidates into supporting their cause because the alternative will be “far worse”.

If this was simply rhetoric it would not be so bad. The fact of the matter is throughout this nation there are ballot access restrictions that limit third parties on the ballot. One example of this was in Illinois, in which, for the first time the Green Party was included in the primary. Green Party members were told they were no ballots, they ran out of them, or the Green Party was not included in the primary. Green Party members saw ballots in boxes, under registration forms, and even in the trash. Since the primary was botched, the state party did what it had done for years, selected candidates for office. On June 9th an Illinois election official removed those candidates from the November ballot. This is the politics of lesser evilism in action.

The biggest problem with lesser evilism is what I call slave plantation politics. It seems, for historical reasons maybe, that this psychology is more ingrained in Democrats than Republicans. Slave plantation politics is akin to seeing voters as slaves. Voters are entities that the Democratic Party owns, not free persons whose support they must earn. Much like a slave running away to another plantation, the Democrats react in a similar fashion if a voter supports a third party. It is in this context the Democratic rage of 2000 gets its meaning. All those votes that went for Nader in 2000 were rightfully the Democrats to begin with. Voters are not “freemen” making a rational political choice, but “slaves” that should feel an obligation to the Democratic Party.

Instant Run Off Voting: While both Australia and France use a first past the post style system, and France elects its president through electoral college, we are the only one to use it without instant runoff voting. Both France and Australia use ranked choice voting to make sure elections are majoritorian rather than a diminishing plurality. In 1992, for example, Bill Clinton won the presidency with only 43% of the popular vote.

While more attention has been given to a National Popular Vote, less has been given to a proportional version of Instant Runoff Voting. Single transferable vote, would closely resemble the Iowa Caucuses. Like with IRV, if your first choice is not one of the top two vote getters, then your second and third choices are allocated until one candidate has a majority. In an electoral college based system states can choose to allocate electoral votes proportionally based on the popular vote.

I plan an posting an mp3 of the interview, but if you want to watch me play the fool live you can get Sirius free for three days.