Democrats and anti competitive practices

Ruben Navarrette:

Recently, I spoke to a group of Hispanic high school students with plans to apply to Ivy League universities. The first thing I wanted them to know was that they wouldn't be the only ones applying. It's fine to have big dreams, I told them. But here's the catch: For everything you want in life, there are going to be others who want the same things. So you have to compete. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Competition is part of life. It makes you better, stronger, and -- ultimately -- more powerful.

That is what Democratic voters around the country should be hearing from their party's presidential candidates. But that's not likely to happen -- not when the Democratic Party has become the anti-competition party.

It's true in education where Democrats, with their slavish devotion to teachers unions, oppose vouchers even for constituencies they pretend to champion such as minorities and the disadvantaged. Vouchers would force public schools into competition.

It's true with immigration, where many Democrats advance the phony argument that illegal immigrants displace U.S. workers by lowering wages. For low-skilled workers who refuse to get more skills or learn a new trade, illegal immigrants amount to competition.

And it's certainly true in the area of trade, where Democrats do the bidding of organized labor by fighting trade agreements and advocating protectionism. Trade, by its very nature, encourages competition by opening up markets across borders and seas.

That sort of thing can be scary in economically depressed states, where blue-collar and low-skilled workers are looking for someone or something to blame for their woes. In states such as Ohio, leaders of organized labor have been working overtime to convince the rank and file that the North American Free Trade Agreement is singularly responsible for the economic uncertainty that a lot of people are feeling right now.

So, with the Ohio primary approaching on March 4, do you suppose Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are delivering the message that competition isn't something to fear?

Nope. Not even close. Instead, the candidates are competing to see who is the bigger protectionist and trying to demagogue the trade issue just as Republicans have done with border security. Apparently, in Ohio -- as in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and other rust belt states -- the worst thing one Democrat can say about another is that he or she is in favor of (gasp!) free trade.

...

Too many Democrats want the Super bowl ring without having to play the game and compete for it. Are there any candidates in the Democrat party willing to tell these people what they need to do to succeed, rather than pander to them and their fears?