WhatFinger

President Obama could use a primer in the art of making better deals.

The Consistent Weaknesses in Obama’s Deals


By Heritage Foundation Ted Bromund——--September 7, 2015

News Headlines | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us


In his first term, President Obama paid lip service to the value of diplomacy but did little negotiating. Now he’s stepped up the pace, with the Iranian nuclear deal and a trade pact with the EU in the offing. He’d have done better to have done less.

Like unhappy families, bad agreements are each bad in their own way. And of course there are degrees of badness: no trade deal, no matter how implausibly dreadful, could be worse than a nuclear deal gone wrong. But bad agreements do have a few features in common. The major postwar agreements—from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to the North Atlantic Treaty that created NATO—stood the test of time because they were good deals that met real needs. They were serious, clear, and substantial, and they benefited everyone. More...

Support Canada Free Press

Donate


Subscribe

View Comments

Heritage Foundation——

The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with more than 453,000 individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973,  mission is
to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.


Sponsored
!-- END RC STICKY -->