The Counter-Protesters

This interview is from the FTAA protests in Miami, in November 2003. The media coverage was dominated by the street protests and the anti-FTAA agenda. Café Mundo did this interview to give the counter-protestors a chance to explain why they came to Miami, and to express their position on free trade and economic rights.

CM: Jason is with Bureaucrash, and for those who are not familiar with the site, tell us a little about Bureaucrash.

Jason: Bureaucrash is an activist network, modeled after the successful tactics of the left. The left is activist and it's sexy and cool, and the libertarians have none of that. We try to market our ideas to the middle - the same middle the left tries to market their ideas to - in a fun way. The advantage is that we're right on the issues. The disadvantage is that we have to be intellectually honest with our audience. The left doesn't have to be.

CM: Jefferson, how did you find out about Bureaucrash, and what brought you here?

Jefferson: I think I first heard about Bureaucrash when I was at the CATO Institute, which is a libertarian think tank in Washington D.C.. A lot of folks there are looking for a way to do things that are more activist because CATO is specifically not activist. In our free time a lot of (us) were looking for other things to do to further the cause of freedom, and that's when I ran across Bureaucrash.

CM: What was your job at CATO?

Jefferson: I was director of marketing, so my passion was... you know, getting the message out. I am really sort of bewildered by the fact that these ideas are so great, and they're not new, and yet so few people truly understand them. Like these kids today who are out there protesting, and say they are anarchists. They are advocating for more rules and more laws and more protection. They protest for human rights and the human condition, and say they are here to protect people in South and Central America, but what these things do is remove jobs. Barriers like price supports on orange juice hurt Brazil... The things that they are fighting for actually hurt the people they claim to help.

So, I'm fascinated from a message and communications standpoint of why. Why don't they get it, and why do they think this is the right solution? How can we get the message to them and make them understand. I don't know if they get it from academia or where this big collectivist idea gets drummed into them that you can't trust people; that you have to trust governments. I'm just fascinated and bewildered by the fact that they really do believe it.

CM:  I think that the dichotomy for these guys isn't people versus governments, but business versus governments, and they definitely don't trust business. 

Jason: I think it's corporations versus people, and they see government as a way to balance the scales a bit. I would say they believe in it. They are either naïve or utopian and they believe that socialism works, but I don't see how their ideas can work in the real world.

Jefferson: I spoke with a Cuban American and a contingent from Venezuela for quite some time, and it's really interesting that they are from these countries where collectivist ideas have been such an utter failure. Yet they want to export that failure here, and introduce some of that failure into the U.S. - into capitalism and into trade. I find that very strange.

Jason: In fairness to them, I think they blame a lot of that failure on the United States. The embargo against Cuba (for instance), as (they feel) Cuba would be a thriving place to live if it were not for the embargo by the United States.

Jefferson: And that is one of the greatest ironies, is that they blame it on the embargo, which is a barrier to trade, which is exactly what they are fighting for. It is very curious to me how they don't see the intellectual disconnect.

CM: You asked where these ideas came from, and one of the things I can tell you having just come out of academia is that dependency theory is still being taught in U.S. universities. It's still being taught in Latin American universities, and the premise behind it is that trade relationships are unequal, so the more trade the more unequal it gets. Essentially the message is that trade impoverishes poor countries.

Jefferson: I do find that interesting, but it seems as if the countries that are most open to trade are the ones where the people are the wealthiest.

CM: So, we are in the second day of the trade talks and they're already over. What are your impressions of what you've seen so far?

Jason: Well, it's really the first day of the trade talks. They only need one day, and of course they had plenty of negotiations beforehand. Well, they have a cafeteria approach to trade, which I think is a lousy idea, and I'm an American so I have to blame my government. We want to keep trade restrictions on a lot of products just because those products (represent) big special interest groups, and the politicians need their votes. I think that's a shame. If we want to effect change, we have to work in our own country first.

CM: How about what you saw on the streets, or when you were talking to people inside the Amphitheater. Were there any arguments you were impressed with, or any groups you were impressed with?

Jefferson: You know I was kind of surprised by the lack of intellectual rigor and debate. It seemed to me that they were just, well not the union people, but the college kids and the so-called anarchists gave me the impression that they really don't even understand. Today we just walked around (and talked to people), and the impression I got was that these people are professional protestors. The issue may not be terribly important to them. I'm not sure this really bothers them. I'm sure there are things about free trade... things that they've heard, that bother them, but I'm not sure they've really thought it out.

CM: I don't think the dialog is going on and you missed it. I don't think there is a dialog. That's one of the reasons I started this website, is because I had that feeling when I left the university.

Jason: Now, you're probably had the most interaction with people the first night when you went from booth to booth and asked a lot of questions and had a lot of lengthy conversations. What do you think?

CM: What I learned is that there is more than one angle to the anti-globalization debate. In other places on the website I want to develop a paper on the best and worst arguments in the globalization debate that I heard here... ranked by which are the best.

One good argument I heard came from Doctors Without Borders. They are concerned about their ability to get generic drugs for poor people. One of the guys that I didn't think I'd be impressed with, who kind of left me thinking, was the Teamster's representative. He said, "We're actually in favor of trade, but we want to see a more level playing field."

Jason: But trade to him means their steel products going out and no steel coming in.

CM: Well, he didn't actually say that.

Jason: But it's very managed trade. As long as it benefits him, he's all in favor of trade. It's just like what we discovered with all the union employees shopping at the Hard Rock Cafe. They're all in favor of textile imports, because they can buy tacky clothing at Hard Rock at prices they find acceptable. When it comes to their own product, it's off the table.

Jefferson: One thing I'd like to look into is that we didn't see a lot of UAW people here because there are two sides to every coin on these protectionism issues. I mean we can make steel ridiculously expensive to import into this country, which does great things for people who live in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. But it also is a huge disadvantage to all the companies in America that make things out of steel because then those products like cars, become more expensive, and less competitive in the global marketplace.

It is very interesting that there were a lot of steel people here, but not a ton of auto worker union people here. 

(On the subject of agriculture tarrifs) Even some of those agricultural products still have niches that can still be successful for Americans. Right now everyone is really overly protective of citrus, and it's been a big deal here because it's a big industry in Florida. Having free trade would also be a big boon to the Florida economy. One of the fastest growing facets of orange juice is the not-from-concentrate fresher orange juice, and that's one of the areas where Florida oranges really can succeed - in the fresh direct-to-market orange juice that isn't overly processed. They could still own that niche.

They don't want to have to basically bring their business into the 21^st century. They want to be able to still do it the old way. In order to compete with Brazil, where labor is cheaper, they have to throw up a ton of barriers to Brazilian orange juice coming into the U.S..

CM: That's one of my arguments against protectionism. I studied how it worked in Mexico, and it is similar to how it worked in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. At first it helps an industry get started, but as it lasts it encourages an industry not to change; not to innovate; not to cut costs.

Jefferson: It's an innovation killer, and it's a bad behavioral psychology tactic too because what you have taught them is that the best way to make money in their business is not to run a better business. The best way is to go to Washington and get them to fix it for them. That's a terrible incentive because they realize that, "Wow, we'll be fine as long as we get twice as much in the next farm bill."

Jason: And Congress was going to cut the Farm Bill and phase out basically subsidies, and got spineless. They gave farmers all this money back the next budget year. It's outrageous to me as a consumer.

We're paying for it one way or another. We are either giving it directly to the farmer or paying for it indirectly through taxes.

CM:  I agree with your economic arguments, but how do you make them popular? I don't think arguments about free trade are "sexy" in the same way as arguments about saving the poor from exploitation.

Jason:  But capitalism is sexy. The vast majority of people wouldn't call it sexy, but they love capitalism. A new cell phone is sexy. A new car is sexy.

Jefferson: Everything that is sexy about fashion and new products and innovation is driven by innovation, and its' all driven by capitalism.

CM:  Yes, but there is no compelling moral argument there.

Jason: You don't need one. They do it out of their own self-interest. People don't really need to think about capitalism and communism. They should just spend money on the things they want, or live their lives how they see fit without other people interfering.

Jefferson:  But there is also a very valid moral argument there. If these people protesting out here really care about workers in Guatemala, I have to think (and I've been to Guatemala a few times) the one thing that wouldn't help these people is to get rid of their jobs. American companies have brought jobs to these countries, and by American standards they aren't the greatest jobs. But by Guatemalan standards they are good jobs, and they can (pay) more than the average salary.

So I think there is a moral argument: that by spreading free trade and capitalism to the world we bring everyone up. Whereas by putting ourselves in these little... cocoons, we allow a country to be isolated to the point where you have people, like in North Korea, who live in absolute squalor because they can't trade with anyone. Even though they have many valuable services and products that could go, but don't because they can't.

I have always loved that photo of the Korean Peninsula by night.

Jason: Yeah, right!

Jefferson:  Because there is no better look at communism versus capitalism. When you look at (the Peninsula) from space at night, South Korea is all lights and North Korea is dark.

Jason: Go to the Bureaucrash website. Did you ever see our e-card on this? We had this e-card with that graphic. It even has a picture of (the president of South Korea) with the slogan, you know, "If communism is so great, why isn't North Korea paradise" or something like that. (It has) that graphic of... no lights!

Jefferson: Right. We want people to live in the one with the lights, where they can buy things, and enjoy the standard of living that people in free countries have. And I really love that photo because it's a completely artificial line. It's not a river. It's a line between capitalism and communism. There is the difference.