Writing at Family Security Matters, Bruce Kesler compares the economic program offered by The Nation national correspondent, William Greider, to the policies proposed by the National Association of Manufacturers, the “Manufacturing Strategy for Jobs and a Competitive America.”

Greider’s piece is entitled, “The End of Free-Trade Globalization.” How so? Greider: “It cannot continue as before, because the United States is essentially tapped out. Goliath has fallen and cannot get up.”

Nonsense.

In his commentary, “U.S. Consumers Vs. Unions: Which Program for Congress?,” Kesler describes Greider’s solutions:

Greider’s prescription is to impose more regulation and taxes upon multinationals that ship production elsewhere. Greider does not even suggest that unions negotiate less costly labor contracts or that our government reduce its regulatory burdens upon domestic manufacturers.

Greider, finally, does admit that his recommendation “would raise prices for Americans.”  US manufacturing unions, however, would – though still likely to hemorrhage jobs – keep high wages and benefits for their remaining members, and dues flowing for contributions to Democrat political campaigns.

Kesler then does a nice job summarizing the NAM’s manufacturing strategy, noting its three-pronged goals:

We want the United States to be the best place in the world to headquarter a business. The United States should be the best place to innovate and do the bulk of a company’s global research and development. And the United States should be a great place to manufacture for the North American market and to serve as an export platform for the global market.

Kesler’s conclusion: “The way of the left only digs the hole deeper, and then pulls the dirt in upon our heads. The way of US manufacturers, instead, strengthens the US competitive advantages.”

Vigorously expressed opposing views.

The Nation, “The Case for EPA Action“:

Wonkish at first glance, the fight over EPA rulemaking may be the most important environmental battle in a generation. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says rich countries like the United States must cut emissions 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020–only ten years away–and thereafter make precipitous cuts to almost zero emissions. If we don’t act now, average global temperatures will likely increase by more than 2 degrees Celsius and trigger self-compounding runaway climate change, resulting in a massive rise in sea levels, devastated agriculture and attendant social chaos. Not one of the climate change bills up for discussion meets this threshold, and it is looking increasingly unlikely that Congress will be able to pass any comprehensive climate change legislation this session. The failures of Congress and the harrowing facts of climate science mean that aggressive and immediate EPA action is essential.

In other words, the failure of the policymaking branch to enact policies desired by The Nation means that the executive branch must now enact, through regulation, the unpopular policies to expand federal control of the economy. How …progressive.

The article also captures the left’s view of political power and the First Amendment. When business groups organize to express opinions and petition the government, it’s powerful and corrupt special interests pulling the strings of government. When environmental groups do the same, it’s “fighting back,” democracy in action.

Another perspective comes from Conrad Black, newspaper magnate, picaresque journalist, ept historian, now in federal prison for fraud and obstruction. From National Review, “Signs of Hope“:

History is replete with strange, swiftly passing political preoccupations, such as Nelson Rockefeller’s bomb shelters and Jerry Brown’s Medflies. But President Obama should be aware that he will be spending the rest of his time in office trying to amass credits that will cause historians to overlook his signing on to the inconvenient untruth of Al Gore’s self-enriching magic carpet of eco-bunk. The Himalayan glaciers are not melting; world water levels are not rising; nor is the world’s temperature; and there is no evidence, none, that human-generated carbon emissions have any impact on the world’s temperature at all, whatever other problems they create….

The last time so prominent an American championed such a mad enterprise was Douglas MacArthur’s advocacy of nuclear side arms for American forces in Korea (the subject of television commentator Chris Matthews’s university thesis); if not Eleanor Roosevelt’s proposal to her husband to drop swarms of hornets and wasps over German troop emplacements. And they weren’t the president.

Black is such a spirited writer.

We’ve previously quoted the following paragraph from The Nation, a leading left-wing periodical, on the stakes for employers involved in the nomination of SEIU counsel Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board, that is, the possibility of administrative enactment of the Employee Free Choice Act. It’s the conclusion from a Jan. 20 article, “Obama’s Pro-Union Nominations to Labor Relations Board Stalled“:

The battle over nominations to the NLRB, even more than EFCA, may be what really determines the extent of labor’s gains under Obama. Should Obama persevere and see his nominations confirmed, there is reason to believe that much of what organized labor hopes to accomplish via EFCA will be realized through the rule-making power of the NLRB. But White House loyalty to these nominees may never gain sufficient spine unless labor and its progressive allies mobilize to push Congress to finish the confirmation process. Without mobilization, this episode may end up being yet another example of Obama’s promises not being realized and hopes going unfulfilled.

That quite clear: The NLRB is the mechanism to achieve what organized labor cannot achieve through legislation.

But now The Nation has added a “clarification” to the column, its importance emphasized by its placement at the top of the piece.

Clarification: NLRB nominee Craig Becker has written that in National Labor Relations Board proceedings related to unionizing, where a union or workers file for a “Board election”in order to form or dissolve a union, there is nothing in the National Labor Relations Act which compels the NLRB’s current policy, which is to permit the employer to be an active participant either favoring, opposing or even obstructing such an election. However, The Nation wishes to make it clear that Becker has never advocated that employers be prevented from participating in other NLRB proceedings, such as those involving alleged unfair labor practices, nor that employers be forbidden from exercising their “free speech” right to oppose union drives. Becker has made it clear that employers should retain the right to protect their legitimate interests before the NLRB.

In other words, sorry we were so upfront about the political consequences of this nomination.

We can imagine how this “clarification” came to be: Someone in the White House or perhaps a top official with Big Labor called The Nation to complain, saying, “You’ve messed us up. You know that conclusion’s going to be used to characterize Becker as labor’s man on the NLRB, the man who can accomplish what we couldn’t get done in the Senate — enact card check. You’ve got to drop that paragraph.” Being honest journalists, the reporters couldn’t put the paragraph down the memory hole, but being good progressives, they wanted to keep Becker’s hopes alive. Hence the “clarification” compromise.

That’s our speculation, at least.

For our earlier coverage of the nomination, go here.

UPDATE (Sunday, 10:30 a.m.): Most dreaded phone call at The Nation, “Yo, Corn! Nichols! Guy from the AFL-CIO on line two.”

Wall Street Journal, “Labor Leaders Digest Senate Setback“:

Labor leaders met by phone Wednesday as the loss of a Democratic Senate seat and the specter of further party defeats in November threw unions’ legislative agenda into disarray and further diminished chances of passing a bill to ease organizing.

An honest assessment comes from Thomas Buffenbarger, president of the International Association of Machinists, who says: “”Personally I think that becomes a dead issue for the year 2010. It’s an election year and I think people are going to focus on what’s most important.”

But then, as Workforce Management reports, “Employee Free Choice Act Supporters Press On Despite Longer Senate Odds.” After all, the AFL-CIO’s Richard Trumka claimed just last week the bill would pass by April. And…

“It’s kind of now or never for them,” said Brett McMahon, vice president of Miller & Long, a concrete subcontractor and a member of Associated Builders and Contractors. “If the chances are [lower] now to get something done, they may become truly impossible in the next Congress.”

It does seem much less likely there will be an up-or-down Senate vote on the Employee Free Choice Act (S. 560), but that doesn’t mean portions of the legislation — ambush elections, for example, or binding arbitration — might be attached to other bills.

And if the legislative path is blocked, there’s always the regulatory/administrative approach. As we’ve noted previously, one of President Obama’s nominees to the National Labor Relations Board is Craig Becker, an SEIU counsel who contends the NLRB can prevent employer involvement when a union seeks to organize the business. Becker is a fervent supporter of the Employee Free Choice Act and card check’s elimination of secret ballot elections.

Becker’s nomination was returned to the White House on Dec. 24, and the President has yet to renominate him.  (UPDATE: Renominated Jan. 20, according to White New news release.) The Nation, the leftwing periodical, reports on the NLRB politics in “Obama’s Pro-Union Nominations to Labor Relations Board Stalled” and concludes:

The battle over nominations to the NLRB, even more than EFCA, may be what really determines the extent of labor’s gains under Obama. Should Obama persevere and see his nominations confirmed, there is reason to believe that much of what organized labor hopes to accomplish via EFCA will be realized through the rule-making power of the NLRB.

We agree with The Nation.

Continuing on the topic of regulations, the left-leaning-leaning-leaning-oops-it’s-toppled-over magazine, The Nation, envisions a newly emboldened and empowered and progressive Federal Trade Commission now making common cause with the Justice Department against “corporate gigantism.” From “The Little Agency that Could“:

Congress needs to take action to unleash the FTC’s full potential. First, it remains a small agency with broad and complex responsibilities and cumbersome procedural burdens, especially in rule-making. Here, the FTC’s champions in Congress can make certain that Congress supplies more resources and streamlines the FTC’s authority. The agency also has a chronic problem of setting priorities: wherever it turns, there are corporate malefactors, large and small, deserving of prosecution. Last year then-chair Kovacic prepared a broad review of the FTC’s effectiveness on the occasion of its approaching 100th anniversary. In his report he called for a larger staff and mission for the FTC’s independent Policy Planning Office to set priorities for the agency–especially apt to its mission of helping to restore a healthy and competitive economy. But the effort needs more than planners; it needs many more prosecutorial troops on the ground.

The second problem facing the FTC is the hangover from eight years of reactionary Bush judicial appointments hostile to FTC cases. (These cases invoked innovative legal theories that aimed for such goals as denying mergers or breaking up huge conglomerates and cited not only traditional anticompetitive theories but broader theories of harm to the economy and the public welfare.) This impediment, too, could be significantly ameliorated by clear legislative authority.

Just what America needs to stay competitive and create jobs: More prosecutorial troops to pursue innovative legal theories.