Porting Controversy: Corporation and State

Terrific diary entry by Hunter at Daily Kos from yesterday that looks at the Dubai Ports World contract affair in a different light:

What troubles me most, I think, about President George W. Bush's dismissive and Kingly reaction to the ports brouhaha, is its seeming kneejerk, reflexive prejudice towards a national deference to corporate power.

The corporate -- in this case, Dubai Ports World -- is seemingly presumed to have an inherent legitimacy that governments are not. It is assumed trustworthy from the get-go. The deal was presumed to be acceptable because the Corporate, after all, can do no wrong.

But, as others have pointed out, this is a remarkable case, in that Dubai Ports World is a state-owned business. Multinational in character, yes. But state owned. (Question: which of those two opposing concepts are we expected to take as dominant, in this debate? The "multinational" part, yes? Does that not further prove the rather remarkable predisposition to presuming corporate power supersedes the national?)

The result is, for lack of a better word, insipid. Why, precisely, is it acceptable for a foreign government to manage the day-to-day operations of major American ports, but it is not acceptable for America's government to have that duty? We are throwing off the duties of government left and right -- privatizing basic functions of the government, having a fire sale of national resources, even corporatizing central logistical tasks of our own military, actively at war -- but have little issue with foreign government management of those tasks.

It is positively surreal. We are in a position where the Republican obsession towards privatization has created a situation where it is acceptable for a foreign government to control vital economic and national security chokepoints of the nation, but it is not acceptable for the American government to manage those same assets.

This is a very powerful argument, and one that echoes some of my own thinking of these past few days, although Hunter writes his so eloquently. The policies of this administration are so slanted toward Corporatism that they trump all else. Post 9/11 world? That's nice, until it gets in the way of a favored corporation's profits. National security and protecting our ports? We're you saying something, I wasn't paying attention because I was too busy making sweet deals for my oil baron buddies. But add on top of that the fact this particular "private" enterprise is state owned, and that we are therefore in fact saying by approving this deal that a foreign government is to control our ports while our own is not, that is quite astounding.

It is no wonder then that this issue has raised the eyebrows of many Republicans who wonder just how far this administration will go before it turns this nation into the United States of Halliburton. However, the very fact Bush himself, while throwing around the threat of using his very first veto against any attempt to stop the deal, was clueless about it until after it was approved, says so much about who pulls the strings in the White House. One clue: buckshot.

It will be interesting to see if Hunter's thoughts regarding the irony of Bush's stance will come back to bite him in the rear. Surely indications are clear he's reached lame-duck status in this second term far sooner than the two year mark pundits typically say it usually occurs. Question is, will Democrats understand how to use this issue to their advantage, or will they continue to shy away from any controversy that has something to do with national security, regardless of how open the door is for scoring points over the matter?