Rebels vs Hypocrites: The Fight Against #Offshoring Inches Closer to a #REVOLUTION.

As predicted, the wave of anti-offshoring sentiments continues to grow toward the level of an electoral tsunami. Like many tsunamis, this wave began as an undersea political earthquake in 2004 when popular opinions first started turning against foreign outsourcing, and has steadily worked its way to shore ever since. A July 2012 Gallup poll puts "stop outsourcing American jobs" as the third most popular way to improve the economy. 

When Presidential candidate John Kerry made foreign outsourcing an issue in his campaign in 2004, it wasn't enough to put him over the top against George W Bush. However, by 2010, it became evident that there was a political tsunami about to hit Washington, DC. It was at this time that a report by the Public Citizen came out, showing that politicians were starting to attack foreign outsourcing in record numbers. Moreover, the report showed that Democrats who attacked foreign outsourcing survived the GOP landslide at a rate of 3 times the number of Democrats who didn't attack foreign outsourcing. Furthermore, Democrats and Republicans alike who previously supported foreign outsourcing, turned against it in order to win. This is very important, because while many were acting hypocritical in launching political attack ads against foreign outsourcing, they did so in order to win. Why did so many politicians do such an about-face? Because like the animals who fled the 2004 tsunami that killed 150,000 people, it was a successful survival tactic. The politicians who ran against anti-outsourcing candidates, tended to lose.

But, of course, defenders of foreign outsourcing would say this is a fluke, right? That, it turns out, appears to be wishful thinking.

In 2012, President Obama put foreign outsourcing in his gunsights, and then proceeded to crucify Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney over the issue. Of course, Obama has had his own rebel and hypocrite relationship with foreign outsourcing, with his support of the horrendously pro-offshoring Trans Pacific Partnership treaty, juxtaposed with his legion of anti-foreign outsourcing activity: his anti-outsourcing bills and his battles with China, including his solar panel tariffs and his victories against China in the WTO.

And President Obama was far from alone. Public Citizen, again, ran the numbers from the 2012 elections, and it turns out that the attacks on foreign outsourcing by politicians increased dramatically. 

Candidates who voted against Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) touted their fair-trade record. Many candidates, including incumbents who could not claim such a record, touted votes in favor of closing tax loopholes that incentivize offshoring, attacked their opponent on offshoring, or pledged to be "tough on China." The magnitude of trade-themed ads to which the American public was exposed in this election cycle was reinforced by an unprecedented prominence of trade themes in the presidential debates and stump speeches.

Now, for those who support foreign outsourcing, this particular piece of news is terrible. The rebels, those who oppose foreign outsourcing, practically cleaned house.

Among all paid ads used by the 294 campaigns, support for trade deals was limited to one ad in which the GOP candidate for Hawaii's open Senate seat, former Gov. Linda Lingle, attacked Senator-elect Maize Hirono for opposing all three FTAs in 2011 when she was a House member. Despite expectations for a close race, Hirono beat Lingle by 26 percentage points.

In 2012, there were some crushing defeats for foreign outsourcing as far as political elections go.

Of course, there were the hypocrites who hopped on the bandwagon, too - those who previously supported (and perhaps still do support) foreign outsourcing, but then turned against it during election time:

More than 40 percent of House and Senate incumbents in tight races who indicted the trade status quo in paid ads or campaign websites have voted for the current trade model more often than they voted against it. A half dozen Republican incumbents ran ads attacking current trade policy despite a 100 percent track record of support for every single NAFTA-style trade deal arising under their tenure. These include Allen West (R-Fla.), David Rivera (R-Fla.), Bobby Schilling (R-Ill.), Dan Benishek (R-Mich.), Reid Ribble (R-Wis.) and Scott Brown (R-Mass.), the incumbent who lost the headline-grabbing battle for Massachusetts' Senate seat. Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.) stands out among Democratic candidates who used the trade theme despite a voting record for unfair trade. Last year, Richmond voted for the NAFTA-style deals with Korea and Panama that both include special protection to facilitate U.S. corporations' job offshoring. As well, an increase in the U.S. trade deficit with Korea since that pact went into effect already had cost U.S. jobs. Incredibly, Richmond chose to attack his challenger in a paid ad for supporting offshoring-prone trade deals. Even more ironically, Richmond cited his own accountability: "I've taken responsibility for my actions because public officials must be accountable. And we should hold Congressman Cao accountable for his record: supporting trade deals with China that send our jobs overseas." While the United States actually has no trade deal with China, it does now have job-eroding deals with Korea and Panama, thanks to Richmond's support.

The common theme? They're all turning against foreign outsourcing of American jobs.

What about these hypocrites, who oppose foreign outsourcing during election time, but who support it when they're in office? That's to be expected at the outset of a political revolution. Indeed, hypocrites are commonplace even as an electoral revolution occurs. Eventually, though, what happens is the hypocrites get washed out to sea when a political tsunami hits land.

Proponents of foreign outsourcing have had 30 years to make their case. America has heard it and they comprehend it. Unfortunately, their case has failed the reality check, as the benefits of globalization have failed to materialize in the face of all the drawbacks.

The lesson to take from this is as follows. Whether a politician was a true rebel against foreign outsourcing or they were a hypocrite who previously supported it, the way to win political office is to oppose foreign outsourcing. Openly supporting it is a clear and undeniable ticket to defeat and retirement. The day is not long in coming in which the way to STAY in office is to stay a rebel and not become a hypocrite. That is the day when a true electoral revolution will occur, and globalization will be forced to face the radical reforms it desperately needs.