If progressives can't trust Barney Frank, who the heck can we trust? That is the question, isn't it?

We jumped in the other day, passing along a report being passed around with alarm on our side of the political spectrum, about the declared willingness of Rep. Barney Frank, normally thought of as something of a political hero among progressives, to make what seemed fairly sweeping concessions to big business in exchange for what seemed an alarmingly modest return--"a grand bargain," as David Sirota reported it on HuffingtonPost, "whereby he wants K Street lobbyists to accept Democrats efforts to raise the minimum wage and allow workers to unionize, in exchange for Democrats' help in pushing more deregulation and more corporate-written trade pacts that have no wage, environmental or human rights protections."

Frank took the matter seriously enough to go quickly into full "clarifying" mode on HuffPost. He says Sirota has "misrepresented" his position. Sirota has now responded there, saying basically that he doesn't see how he could have "misrepresented" Frank's position since all he did was quote what he said.

Now I don't mean to minimize the specifics of the Frank and Sirota arguments. It's what we're talking about, for cripes' sake. To be perfectly honest, though, I haven't actually read every word of their posts. I'm sure I will be a better person if and when I do, and you can be too--they're presented in full down below a ways.

In the end, though, I think we're still left with two contrasting schools of progressive response, and they're already being reflected in some pretty strenuous "discussion" being flung back and forth among high-powered blogospheric progressives:

SCHOOL 1: If there's anybody in government we can trust, it's Barney Frank. We've got to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's one of the good guys. Before jumping all over him, we should at least hear what he has to say. He may have a perfectly reasonable explanation.

SCHOOL 2: Granted the first premise, that doesn't actually answer the question of whether there is anyone in government we can trust. Aren't we better off if we think of "trusted allies" as, you know, just a figure of speech? And if we make sure to "hold their feet to the fire" when they show signs of getting out of line? You know, the way the Republicans in the Age of Rove have generally kept their ranks solid?

(By extension, we could think of this the way dog trainers do when they justify, say, what seem like harsh methods for training a puppy: When you set limits and make sure the pooch knows when he/she is out of line, you do it even more in his/her interest than your own--the little puppy will feel safer and more secure.)

I don't pretend to have an answer here. What I know is that this is hardly the last time this question is going to be raised. Which I guess means we're going to have to think seriously about it.

Now, as promised, for that HuffPost exchange.

WHAT BARNEY FRANK SAYS

Correcting the Record

David Sirota recently posted some misrepresentations of my economic viewpoint. I should note that Mr. Sirota did not attempt to get in touch with me--either to speak with me about my ideas, or to get a fuller representation of them--and instead relied on referencing one quote from a newspaper. I would have been glad to provide my writings which clearly contradict some of the things he said, and I would have also been glad to have talked with him about this.

He says, for example, that I am offering "democrats help in pushing...more corporate-written trade pacts that have no wage, environmental or human rights protections." This is false. In fact, I have worked very closely with Rep. Sandy Levin (D-MI), who has been our leader on trade, to insist on the inclusion of all of these items in trade bills, and I have voted against trade bills including NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO for China, fast track authority, etc. for that very reason. I did vote for the Jordan trade bill because it had the standards we wanted. At no point have I suggested that we would change our position and start supporting trade pacts that do not contain labor and environmental standards and respect for human rights.

I believe we should continue our opposition to those items that are on the business community's agenda until they drop all opposition to people joining unions. I could only hope that card-check legislation is a given, but I don't think it will be easy to pass.

Another major omission is my insistence that American business support universal health care. I have always listed universally available health care that is not tied to employment as part of the deal. I have also talked about the importance of the public sector being expanded as a major source of jobs. And in that context I have especially talked about lowering the cost of college education both by greater public support for it at the state level and by increased funding for Pell grants and guaranteed student loans.

There are some things that the business community wants that are being stalled today that I believe many liberals want to support for our own reasons. First among these is immigration, and I have cited working together for a set of policies more supportive of immigration with the business community as one of the things that I believe we should do. I have also supported more direct foreign investment and I was a strong supporter of the successful domestic content bills for the auto industry in the 80s. Remember, we are talking here about direct investment, not simply buying stocks.

My Grand Bargain starts with a way for us to pass a broad liberal agenda--including raising wages (not just the minimum wage), health care, labor and environmental standards in trade agreements, more support for access to education, and an increased public sector in many other areas--and I am prepared to work with some aspects of the business community's agenda if we can get them. I should add that if we can get labor, human rights and environmental standards in trade bills, I think foreign trade can be a good thing when properly done, and can be particularly helpful to poor people in other countries, whose existence we should not entirely forget.

Finally, I do want to say that I think it is entirely reasonable for us to disagree about my argument or the tactics I use to enact our goals. I have been fighting for liberal causes in what I think has been the most pragmatic and sensible way for 26 years in Congress. But, for Mr. Sirota to impute to me the kind of improper motives that he does--charging that I am doing this to raise money or that I am selling out to K St. moneyed interests--has no basis in a legitimate debate over issues. I would encourage you to read my recent op-ed in the American Prospect magazine, the text of which you can find here.

If you are interested in more information, read this piece in the Boston Globe.

WHAT DAVID SIROTA SAYS

A Progressive "Grand Bargain" With Barney Frank

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) posted a response to a post I had written about his so-called "Grand Bargain" that is instructive on a number of different levels.

First and foremost is how politicians use the claim of "misrepresentation." Frank says I have somehow "misrepresented" him by quoting him directly saying he wants to work "with the business community on some of the things they have been working for like more foreign trade and outsourcing." Frank was reiterating what the Boston Globe reported he said, which was that he "would agree to reduce regulations and support free-trade deals in exchange for businesses agreeing to greater wage increases and job benefits for workers." He takes exception to me saying his "grand bargain" was to push "more corporate-written trade pacts that have no wage, environmental or human rights protections." But, that is the definition of supporting "free trade" and "more outsourcing" as it is defined today--period.

There is no debate that our current free trade policy and policies that support "more outsourcing" are ones that are A) corporate-written abd B) include no wage, environmental or human rights protections. Continuing those current policies, as Frank said was part of his "bargain," would be continuing to have none of those protections.

So there's no misrepresentation there at all. It's actually just accurately describing what he proposed, teaching us once again that when a politician uses the term "misrepresentation" he/she usually means "I didn't really mean what I actually said because now I'm getting heat for it outside the insulated corridors of power."

Frank then uses the age-old move of going on to say "but wait, look--I am good on other issues!" It's like a magician trying to make you look in one hand so that you take your eye off the other. He cites his "insistence that American business support universal health care." Hell, I'll be the first one to say that Frank has been a leader on all sorts of great issues--from health care to getting CEO pay under control. I've even trumpeted his work in my own past writing. But all that stuff doesn't negate the fundamental question about his "grand bargain" and the comments he made at his press conference last week introducing it. Just because you have done great stuff on some issues, doesn't mean you are automatically immune from questions about other issues.

All of this said, I'm very glad to hear that Frank is, shall we say, "clarifying" his "grand bargain" proposal to make sure people understand he will oppose our current "free trade" pacts "that do not contain labor and environmental standards and respect for human rights." That gets us to another key point on Frank's post: that politicians will often move to the right unless there are strong, consistent progressive voices holding them accountable.

Frank huffs and puffs that I didn't call him up (apparently, it's unacceptable to actually cite the direct and already-published quotes of a politician without calling them to see if it is OK--and hey--why didn't he call me if he was upset?). But the real issue here is that politicians don't like to be called on the carpet when they are negotiating with Serious People in Washington. Frank was trying to communicate with Washington's business community, and he didn't like it that someone started publicly asking questions. He's not alone of course--politicians and political operatives hate when the public actually asks questions. It's the same reasons why many of Obama's followers immediately freak out when anyone asks substantive questions about Obama's actual positions. But, here's a newsflash: that's the progressive movement's job--to ask questions, and make sure the people who lead in our name are legislating our agenda.

Finally, and most typically, Frank ends his post with a classic exhortation against anyone raising questions about the pay-to-play political system that is our democracy. He says it is unacceptable to raise the possibility "that I am doing this to raise money or that I am selling out to K St. moneyed interests." Such a line of questioning "has no basis in a legitimate debate over issues." Right, because policy debates exist in this nice, warm, fuzzy place that is all about ideals, and morals and convictions and has absolutely nothing to do with who is giving money to whom. Please, Congressman Frank--you are one of the smartest Members of Congress in the institution--spare us this holier than thou nonsense that has no relation to how politics really works. We are smarter than that.

As I wrote in my book, Hostile Takeover, money is not something that exists outside of the debates in Washington--money is what drives the debates in Washington. This isn't to say that Frank personally pocketed a huge amount of cash in order to propose this "grand bargain" (though, of course, we aren't supposed to look at the hundreds of thousands of dollars he's taken from lobbyists, Wall Street, etc.). But it is to say that everything that happens in our nation's capital happens with an eye on the Big Money interests. This has been especially obvious since the election, as Democrats have been running around bragging to reporters about how much love they are now getting from lobbyists (take a look at this Hill Newspaper article for just a small taste). As I wrote, those lobbyists "are shoveling money at Democrats to get deals like the one Frank has proposed." That's just a statement of fact, whether Frank wants to acknowledge it or not--K Street will be more than happy to get more free trade pacts and more deregulation bills in exchange for minimum wage increases and basic union rights that should already be a given in the new Democratic Congress.

Let me reiterate--I take Frank at his word that, despite his recent declarations, that's not the "grand bargain" he has in mind. He's right--he has been a champion for various liberal causes in the past, no one is taking that away from him now, and we should trust that he will be a major ally in the new Congress.

But remember--the fundamental dynamic has now changed. The Democrats now have real power to do things--good or bad. He, like other progressive lawmakers, should appreciate that there is now an emerging progressive infrastructure to support him when he wants to champion our agenda, and go after his opponents--Democratic turncoats, Republicans and K Street lobbyists--who get in his way when he pushes our agenda. But like every other Member of Congress, he should also be aware that this progressive infrastructure is progressive first--and is not going to be silent when Democrats publicly move in a direction that suggests our core economic justice platform is going to be compromised.

So here's my "grand bargain" for you, Congressman Frank: we the progressive movement will help you promote the hell out of your proposals to make this economy more fair for regular working stiffs, if, as you pledged, you will not offer up concessions on the core economic justice agenda that don't need to be made. Now that sounds like a "grand bargain" that helps everyone.

THURSDAY ADDENDUM

Well, now I actually have read all of what both Barney and David (if I may be so familiar) had to say. I found it really interesting.--Ken