Among the first casualties of the lurch toward protectionism on Capitol Hill: the interests of transatlantic air travelers. (Daniel Drezner, Dec. 6; via Reynolds). P.S.: for the underlying news report, see Don Phillips, “U.S. Withdraws Plan on Foreign Investment in Airlines, Disrupting Open-Skies Treaty”, New York Times, Dec. 6.
Among the first casualties of the lurch toward protectionism on Capitol Hill: the interests of transatlantic air travelers. (Daniel Drezner, Dec. 6; via Reynolds).
P.S.: for the underlying news report, see Don Phillips, “U.S. Withdraws Plan on Foreign Investment in Airlines, Disrupting Open-Skies Treaty”, New York Times, Dec. 6.
3 Comments
I just read the blog post you reference. I think you should wait until the Democrats actually have their fingerprints on something before describing something as a “lurch toward protectionism.” The changeover has not yet occurred, and yet a Republican Administration with a still-Republican Congress is already pushing the “look what the Democrats made us do” propoganda.
However, if you merely meant to point out a piece of “protectionist” legislation, and did not mean to imply one thing or another about any particular party–my apologies.
The underlying New York Times report (now linked in the post) in its first sentence reported that the Administration withdrew the plan “bowing to opposition expected to deepen in a Democratic-controlled Congress”. However, I see Jay Wilson’s point that there can be more than one way to characterize the politics of a controversy like this, and I would not want to take as the last word the way the Times elected to characterize it.
There’s apparently plenty of bipartisan blame for this anti-consumer fiasco, though is certainly doesn’t help that the incoming Democratic chair of the relevant committee is one of the strongest opponents. The LA Times is surprisingly good on this issue.