I've been tempted on a few occasions to write yet again about the Dubai deal, and what really bugs me about it. And yes, I have to admit, that there at the bottom of my opposition to it is a bias that presumes incompetence on the part of this administration. An incompetence born of carelessness. Carelessness in the sense of "they could care less" about the security of our ports. About the concerns of ordinary Americans.
I must also confess to a bias that presumes that the free-trade elites who drive economic policy have their own ideological biases, and have therefore blinders that prevent them from seeing what is obvious to every one else, that they care less about American concerns about terrorist attacks than they do about their own dealmaking.
They believe that whatever the global markets want, the global markets should get. Everything good follows from that. But quite frankly I've always thought that to be a dogma that works for the benefit of the already rich and powerful than it does for everyone else.
And this deal and its defense reek of that kind narrow, self-interested thinking that justifies itself with Tom Friedmanesque bromides about the wonderful benefits of the globalizing economy. It's the same kind of scorn that these elites heap on the unwashed like me who have problems with the WTO. Our resistance is not rooted in some naive hope that globalization is not inevitable, but in resistance to the agenda of the elites who use the WTO policies to promote their own narrow, self-serving interests.
And this is pretty much the point that Joe Conason makes in an article this morning:
How fortunate that the opinion pages of our mightiest newspapers are open to diverse viewpoints. We would otherwise miss the opportunity to learn from liberal, conservative and centrist pundits alike that opponents of the Dubai ports deal—which now include about 70 percent of the American public—must be crazed, racist and xenophobic.
One original thinker after another insists that there can be no honest criticism of the Dubai deal. They tell us that every critic, no matter how measured, is a protectionist bigot; and that every argument, no matter how rational, is a calumny against Arabs and Muslims. There is a strange whiff of demagogy in these screeds. . . .
The more we learn about this process, the less confidence we have in it. To doubt the competence of this government is neither xenophobic nor racist.
I don't trust any of the parties involved in this deal to put what is best for the American people in the center. If Bush cared about port security, he would have done far more to date than he has to support the agencies who are responsible for it. It is simply not a priority for him. The principals care about themselves and their own agendas first and foremost, these agendas are at best peripheral and at worst opposed to the interests of most ordinary Americans.
They are careless about the conerns of the rest of us. Oh, sure they'll tell you they care. Just like Wal-Mart cares so truly and deeply about their so-called associates. Just as Skilling and Lay cared about the retirement plans of their employees at Enron. Maybe on some delusionary level they have convinced themselves that they do care about the ordinary people in the middle, but it's clear that they care about other things much, much more.
But when it comes to the idea of Dubai Ports being given this plum of a contract, I have big problems. For me it's a combination of two concerns First that Dubai Ports is more vulnerable to terrorist infiltration because than, say, a Chinese company doing the same job. Second, that the ports themselves are vulnerable because so few resources have been allocated for securing them by an administration that does not care about such things.
And it will take an awful lot of convincing evidence to come to light for me to be persuaded otherwise. They don't care; they don't have to. They control all three branches of government.
Leave a Reply