In the Faux-DeLong debate, I end up on the side of Faux. The work that Jeff has produced through the years has been a critical counter-voice to the prevailing liberal economic wisdom--and without the Economic Policy Institute, our democratic--and Democratic--economic thought would be more tunnel vision and Republican lite than expansive thought that might actually solve the daily problems of working Americans.

It's pretty interesting, indeed, how much the trade debate still raises the temperature among progressives, liberals, left-liberals-who, otherwise, agree on a whole lot. At a salon of lefty journalists and thinkers (not to imply that journalists aren't thinkers...) that I ran in NYC for several years, this debate divided the room in ways I never envisioned. The only thing that split in more ways (and led to some splits in the group itself) was the war in Iraq.

But I'd like to suggest that with all our differences in the Democratic camp on economics, and especially on trade policy, there is an important bit of agreement that didn't exist when this whole trade debate fueled earlier presidential seasons--that's a near uniformity in support of unions, unionization, the need for stronger unions, in order to build and rebuild America's middle class.

The anti-union, pro-corporate vision of the DLC may still hold strong on trade and some tax policy, too, but on the issue of whether or not unions are good for the U.S. economy, the Democratic economists and politicians are standing together. Today's victorious vote in the House of Representatives for the Employee Free Choice Act shows precisely that. No matter how many times the WSJournal editorial page calls organized labor "Big Labor," it won't become big--not unless the laws change. (I mean, come on, guys--with just over 7% of the private sector workforce organized, who are you calling big???)

The laws need to change to end the harassment of workers, and the ridiculously uneven playing field that workers face when unions try to organize inside a factory, in a service situation, or elsewhere. That's why the WSJ decided to run its lead editorial against the EFCA today--because this bill, if it ever becomes law (unlikely without a change in 2008, with a Senate filibuster promised and a White House veto), will not only make it easier for workers to organize, but it will allow workers the freedom to decide--free from coercion and intimidation--what they want their fate to be.

As I mentioned in an earlier post last week, it's been a long time since Hollywood has portrayed union struggles on the big screen; the film Norma Rae was the best depiction in modern memory--and as Robert Nathan and I wrote about it, in a recent Nation mag, when you watch the film you will see the union reality, the organizing reality that still exists today. And, on that principle, the Dems are united. There has to be a way to bring the sides closer together, then, on issues like international labor standards and environmental standards. Global warming and polluted water don't stop at a border, and lower standards drag all workers down.

There needs to be a way to have this conversation in language that acknowledges that both sides live in a reality that accepts globalization; but on whose terms, and what world we all want to pass on is what we need to focus on now.