So what kind of changes could we expect a new President Clinton to make in the controversial TPP? By birth, she’s deeply tuned into the Scorpio forces that pushed NAFTA into existence, so if anyone can apply the antidote to that “barrel of venomous snakes,” she could be the one. Only time will tell, but at least she acknowledges she doesn’t have all the answers!
I must begin this post by applauding the
outstanding Convention the Dems put on this week. Besides making gender
equality history with Hillary Clinton’s nomination, this Convention celebrated
the ability of American politics to produce a sane, well-prepared presidential
candidate. This may sound like low aspirations, but it was certainly not a foregone conclusion this election season.
For delegates supporting primary candidate Bernie Sanders, however,
it was a bittersweet week. Sanders proved himself to be a dignified statesman throughout,
working with Clinton to craft the Democratic platform, and encouraging his
supporters to make the leap in her direction. When it came time to vote, he
gallantly rose to the floor and moved that the Convention nominate her by
acclimation for the sake of party unity. Tears streamed down many faces, but
the thunderous “ayes” took it.
Despite Sanders’ encouragement, however, many of his
convened supporters simply refused to give up the ghost of his candidacy,
staging protests throughout the Convention. The good news was, their voices
were never squashed or rebuked, and many speakers applauded Bernie Sanders for
his contributions to the campaign and the platform; the bad news was, their
most stubborn grievances weren’t given much attention.
Among those was their vehement opposition to the
Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal (TPP), which Sanders demonized repeatedly
throughout his campaign. His followers carried “NO TPP” signs throughout the
Convention, yet there was no serious discussion of that specific deal and what
Clinton plans to do with it. We know she’s not a fan of the TPP as it is
written, even though she allies herself with TPP booster, Obama, but what changes would she make? Would the
changes be enough to roll back the worst excesses of free trade, as far as the
American middle class is concerned?
Clinton’s momentous speech last night acknowledged a number
of ways that corporations need to start “giving back” to those who give them
tax breaks, but how those ideas would impact trade bills, past and present, remains
unclear. My guess is that a comprehensive discussion needs to happen before
Sanders’ supporters (and others) will feel truly comfortable getting on board.
So, this post aims to
look at the astrology of “free trade”—specifically regarding
NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement passed in 1993, that kicked open
the door to today’s globalized trade reality.
A barrel of venomous
snakes
For starters, why do so many Americans react to the idea of
free trade like it’s a barrel of venomous snakes? It’s not hard to fathom—even
my outdated exposure to the corporate workplace suggests that a lot of people
who have reached into that barrel have gotten bit.
My last corporate job was, in fact, “downsized” and
“consolidated” during the first couple years
of NAFTA—the much-maligned agreement signed into law by former President
Bill Clinton (and possible “First Gentleman” in January) in December 1993. I
was a public relations manager in charge of managing communications during this
downsizing, which meant my job also went
away, once the dust of two massive layoffs settled.
Long story short, NAFTA—and every free trade agreement the
U.S. has signed since—has caused major dislocations in American workers’ lives.
A predictable pattern has evolved: decently paid jobs are lost, then replaced
by more stressful, lower-paying jobs with fewer and more expensive benefits.
Reality TV paints a picture of a nation of entrepreneurs, roiling in a shark
tank—how many of us does that feed?
The writing on the wall
Sadly, a lot of the vicious anti-Mexican rhetoric we’re hearing this year from Trump’s campaign only mirrors the antagonism caused by NAFTA when it was passed, over widespread objections. As feared, thousands of good American jobs did move to Mexico because of its cheaper labor force and lack of environmental regulations. These were still the early days in the erosion of American manufacturing, but the writing was clearly on the wall: until a level playing field is created for American workers, those jobs are not coming back. And the jobs that do come back will offer lower wages and shakier benefits.
Sadly, a lot of the vicious anti-Mexican rhetoric we’re hearing this year from Trump’s campaign only mirrors the antagonism caused by NAFTA when it was passed, over widespread objections. As feared, thousands of good American jobs did move to Mexico because of its cheaper labor force and lack of environmental regulations. These were still the early days in the erosion of American manufacturing, but the writing was clearly on the wall: until a level playing field is created for American workers, those jobs are not coming back. And the jobs that do come back will offer lower wages and shakier benefits.
Every presidential race since NAFTA’s passage has been at
least partially consumed by this issue, but the rhetoric has been abnormally
volatile this year, as people have become increasingly exasperated over
grotesque levels of income inequality, stagnant wages and so on.
The amazing irony of the Bill Clinton years was, he presided
over the “roaring 90s,” a time when the nation’s overall economy was booming. He
never hesitates to brag about the budget surplus he left behind for G.W. Bush.
Ironically, there were a lot of jobs
created during that period too—IT, for example, was a relatively new, vibrant
field that was gushing middle-class wage jobs for young adults straight out of
tech school (I taught Communications at one, so I saw this happening), so not all American workers were imperiled, but
the groundwork was laid for growing problems ahead as globalization really took
hold.
I can only wonder whether my students still had those
good-paying jobs once the 2007-8 recession hit.
It seems that, even though national economic priorities
began their shift away from American worker-security to global investor profit
well before Bill Clinton’s presidency, (even NAFTA had its origins with George
H. W. Bush’s administration), the economic measures Clinton’s administration
passed, such as repealing the Glass-Steagall
Act, produced a finance industry-fueled prosperity that powerfully
supported that shift.
Picking up on NAFTA in 1993 where Bush had left off, did
Clinton purposely undermine American workers for the sake of channeling wealth
to investors and big banks? I don’t really believe there was a negative intent,
but according to John R. MacArthur’s study, The
Selling of “Free Trade,” [i]
the welfare of workers is rarely factored into trade negotiations. The fact is,
Clinton’s administration insisted on two supplements to the original NAFTA
agreement that addressed labor and environmental cooperation guidelines, which
helped pass the agreement in Congress with bipartisan support.
I remember vividly how the 1990s press claimed that
globalization was “inevitable,” so if we can understand the forces that
colluded to make NAFTA so fated, perhaps we can influence how future trade agreements
are crafted. These forces are visible in the astrology we’ll consider below.
A truly comprehensive study of all this is impossible here,
but we can learn quite a bit from dipping even lightly into the charts for
NAFTA’s evolution—from concept under George Bush (Biwheel 1) to an approved
bill in Congress (Biwheel 2), to a signed agreement under Clinton (Biwheel 3).
I’ve set these charts against the U.S. Sibly chart for national context. Let’s
begin.
Biwheel 1: (inner
wheel) Radix, U.S. Sibly, July 4, 1776, 5:10 p.m., LMT, Philadelphia, PA; (outer wheel) Radix, NAFTA—George Bush
signs, December
17, 1992, 12:00 p.m., Washington, D.C.
Interchart T-Square: Signing Sun conjoins the Galactic Center
(both Sagittarius) and opposes Sibly Mars (Gemini); Signing Node (Sagittarius)
widely conjoins Sun-GC and exactly opposes Sibly Mars; these oppositions square
Sibly Neptune (Virgo). The Galactic Center seems to be involved in
major developments that feel “inevitable,” like ideas “whose time has come.”
George Bush coined the term “new world order” during this period to describe a
seamless world of “industrial economies woven together into one,”[ii]
and trade agreements were touted as the peaceful means to do this during his
administration. We could talk at length about the dark side of multinational
corporations taking over the world; suffice to say here, this Sun-GC-Node
alignment opposite Mars reflects the enormity of this idea, and of the times.
The Soviet Union had recently dissolved and the European
Economic Community was quickly morphing into the European Union (11/1/1993);
all of this made the new trading order Bush envisioned feasible. The opposition
to Mars here reflects the military might that the nation had at its disposal to
enforce the ideas hatched at this time, which, in retrospect, have been far
from peaceful. The square to Neptune reflects the distorted use of the
“American Dream” (and sole superpower status) made to sell NAFTA—MacArthur
called it “capitalist triumphalism… justifying everything that happened
everywhere.”[iii]
Signing Sun-GC (Sagittarius) sextile Sibly Moon (Aquarius); Signing
Mars (Rx, Cancer) conjoins Sibly Mercury (Cancer) and opposes Sibly Pluto
(Capricorn). Clearly, there was an aggressive thrust of activity that
“rammed” NAFTA—an important foot-in-the-door for multinationals into the world
of globalization—into existence. The opportunity to leverage the energies of
American workers (sextile from Signing Sun-Node) was open and this initial
stage of the agreement walked right through.
Interchart Grand Air
Trine: Signing Venus-Saturn (Aquarius)
trined Sibly Saturn (Libra)-Signing Jupiter (Libra) and Sibly Uranus (Gemini);
Signing Venus-Saturn inconjoin Sibly Sun (Cancer). This aspect
perfectly represents the “fast track” authority Bush sought from Congress to
expedite negotiations. As it happened, there were Congressmen and
constituencies with deep reservations, so there were delays that prevented its
passage before Bush’s term ended (inconjunct), which is why Clinton had to
shepherd NAFTA into existence from there.
It’s significant that Signing Saturn and Jupiter were in
their cycle’s waning trine here and that they tapped into Sibly “power
centers”—this pushed the powers-that-be to complete business left unfinished
from the December 31, 1980 inception of this cycle in Libra, which ushered in
the Reagan administration. Reagan famously promoted the idea that “government
is the problem,” meaning the less regulation on corporations, finances and the
environment, the better. NAFTA certainly delivered on this idea—the relaxation
of regulations that would protect workers and the environment from
over-reaching corporations was at its core.
Interchart T-Square: Signing Uranus-Neptune (Capricorn) oppose
Sibly Sun and this axis squares Sibly Saturn (Libra)-Signing Jupiter (Libra). A
cardinal t-square is always a call to action, but the successful completion of
that action may take longer than one would like. With Saturn and Jupiter at the
apex (the planets that are being squared by the axis), there’s a rush to take
advantage of an opportunity, but there’s no instant gratification—time is
needed. This held true with Bush (impatient to fast track the agreement) and
others had to see his project to completion. (Not related to NAFTA,
necessarily, but Bush’s “unfinished business” with Saddam Hussein had to also
be completed by another—his son, G.W. Bush).
Even more important than the frustrating delay Bush endured,
however, was the significance of NAFTA being conceived while the powerful
Uranus-Neptune conjunction in Capricorn (exact at 19°+Capricorn on February 2, 1993) was quickly
perfecting. This duo’s long-term (roughly 172 years) cycle is about dissolving
outmoded forms (especially relevant in Capricorn), promoting the “cult” of
materialism, building ideal structures (i.e., the global Internet
infrastructure that enables commerce, a massive fleet of container ships for
transporting foreign made goods around the world, the European Union, Al-Qaeda
and a “Caliphate” for ISIS, etc.), promoting nebulous fears and strengthening
collective channels of authority.
So many of today’s challenges—including NAFTA (and all the
other trade agreements that followed)—the increased power of multinational
corporations and ideology-based terrorism—trace their inception back to this
conjunction.
Fast forward to July
2016, and Transiting Pluto (Capricorn) is now within orb of conjoining the 19°+Capricorn
inception point of the 1993 Uranus-Neptune cycle, so it’s not surprising that the early fruits of that cycle are
now coming under fire and causing major disruptions (migrant crisis, etc.). We
shouldn’t forget that in Capricorn the seed impulse of this cycle is grabby,
earthy, materialistic and resource-oriented. Ideological ambitions become a
quest to take over territory and resources—and ideology is often used to
justify raw material ambitions. There’s a very harsh edge to this cycle that
applauds no-holds-barred ambition at the expense of others—perhaps this
explains why Election 2016 has been so coarse and angry.
Signing Pluto (Scorpio) sextiles Sibly Pluto (Capricorn) and trines
Signing Mars (Rx, Cancer). This sextile provided Bush with a window of
opportunity to leverage (Scorpio) the American finance/investment system
(Pluto) for the purposes of the aggressive (Mars) “new world order” he
envisioned. I have seen no confirmation of this, but the idea to repeal the
Glass-Steagall Act keeping banking, investing and insurance separate may have
been Bush’s idea as well—breaking down those protective barriers was essential
for NAFTA and later globalization efforts.
http://www.southeastcoalash.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ congress.jpg |
The NAFTA vote in
Congress
If anyone thinks astrologers are no longer working to help
government officials plan their important events, the following biwheel should
convince you they are. The timing of this vote was documented, so we can
consider house placements as well. We won’t go into a great deal of detail, but
a quick look at a few key placements will add context for the eventual signing
of the agreement and its life since then.
Biwheel 2: (inner
wheel) Radix, U.S. Sibly, July 4, 1776, 5:10 p.m., LMT, Philadelphia, PA; (outer wheel) Radix, Congress votes yes
on NAFTA,
November 17, 1993, 7:30 p.m. ST, Washington, D.C.
Vote Sun-Pluto (Scorpio) sextiles Sibly Pluto (Capricorn), squares Vote
Saturn-Sibly Moon (Aquarius) and trines Sibly Mercury (Cancer). A very
hard-nosed complex of aspects, this suggests that this vote probably involved a
combination of arm-twisting (the squares), especially in regards to the public
(Moon), and behind the scenes manipulation (12th house Scorpio). The
vote seized upon a solid opportunity (sextile) for the finance industry
(Pluto), enabled by the opening of trade (trine to Mercury).
This harsh Saturn-Pluto square, tying into the Sibly Moon
(the People), reflects the hardship many could expect to experience with
NAFTA-driven labor dynamics, and it
reflects the hard-nosed attitude Congress took towards the public—especially
unionized workers—in this vote. According to MacArthur, the Bushes were in
“…the traditional mindset about trade, which is: trade is good on any terms;
the world is the way it is; we can’t change anything, so let’s just get in
there and get as much trade as we can…labor and workers and environmentalists
are just not at the table.”[iv]
The Bush mindset was typical for Republicans and in growing numbers at that
time, Democrats.
Vote Uranus-Neptune-Moon conjoin in Capricorn, square Sibly Chiron
(Aries) and trine Sibly Neptune (Virgo). This potent Capricorn
gathering united Congress around an ideology (trine to Neptune) that said trade
and capital should flow freely like water (Neptune); the pain inflicted on the
nation (square to Chiron) was—like labor and environmentalists—not on the
table.
Vote Jupiter-Mercury and (widely) Venus (all Scorpio) trine Sibly
Venus-Jupiter (Cancer). These trine aspects focused Congress’s
attention on the revenue potential promised by NAFTA, especially for the
finance industry (Jupiter also forms a wide, out-of-sign square to Sibly
Pluto). Seventh house Sibly Venus-Jupiter are always interested in the benefits
our relationships hold for us (and how our national security is impacted), so
trade is a natural focus that tends to bleed over into security and defense
issues.
http://s62.podbean.com/pb/fbbf0ce2af7461e49ac0b57862179d40/ 579bab83/data3/fs73/725826/uploads/naftasigning.jpg |
Stage three—Signing NAFTA
into law
There were many who didn’t buy the promised economic
benefits of NAFTA to the U.S.—and in retrospect, they may have been right—but passing
it was driven by Clinton’s enthusiasm and political coalition-building skill.
Clinton’s support for unregulated trade represented a move to the center for
traditional Democratic values, but he radiated a fresh-faced, idealistic
confidence that somehow open, unregulated (“free”) markets would help build
democracy abroad, and many other prominent Dems agreed with him.
Free market theory was almost a delusional “Kool-aid” that
Ivy League conservative economists were selling at the time, and even though
American workers weren’t buying it, the delusion prevailed and the bill was
signed into law on December 8, 1993. Again, the day was perfectly chosen—if the
goal was to prevail philosophically over very legitimate reservations.
Biwheel 3: (inner
wheel) Radix, U.S. Sibly, July 4, 1776, 5:10 p.m., LMT, Philadelphia, PA; (outer wheel) Radix, NAFTA,
is signed into law, December 8, 1993, 12:00 p.m. ST (no actual time known),
Washington, D.C.
NAFTA Sun-Mars (Sagittarius) oppose Sibly Mars (Gemini); NAFTA Sun
conjoins Sibly ASC (Sagittarius) and opposes Sibly DSC (Gemini). These
aspects read like an angular assault (Mars) on the nation’s ability to balance
Self interests with the interests of Others. Where do we focus our efforts? The
amazingly tight Mars-Mars opposition is like an ideological (Sagittarius) “shot
across the bow” to our trade partners (Sibly 7th house) that day. In
fact, if these energies were viewed from a different context, they might reflect
a violent exchange (an incoming or outgoing attack). Perhaps the damage done by
NAFTA was shared by all partners to some extent?
NAFTA Saturn (Aquarius) conjoins Sibly Moon (Aquarius) and trines Sibly
Mars (Gemini); Saturn disposes NAFTA Uranus-Neptune conjunction in Capricorn. With
its trine here, transiting Saturn ties the “violence” of the Mars-Mars
opposition into a far-reaching corporate juggernaut (Uranus-Neptune in
Capricorn) with grave consequences (Saturn) for the People (Moon). We can’t
argue that it was all bad—some sectors of the economy benefited, but NAFTA
represented the first major wave of a damaging shift away from a manufacturing
economy into something far less secure for American workers, even if they weren’t
in manufacturing.
Uranus’s involvement, of course, reflects how important
technological developments were to enabling this process. Neptune, for its part,
was the standard bearer for the material dreams (Capricorn Neptune) of
underdeveloped and developing countries that would soon be sewing our clothing
and manufacturing our cell phones in modern day sweat shops.
The pressure to level wages out across the globe was also
covered by this Neptune—water and capital flows always seek their own
levels.
NAFTA Pluto (Scorpio) sextiles Sibly Pluto (Capricorn), squares Sibly
Moon (Aquarius) and trines Sibly Mercury (Cancer). This heavy placement
for Pluto opened the door to the entanglement of global financial and
geopolitical power dynamics that followed on NAFTA’s heels. Here we see Pluto’s
transformative force applied on the People (Moon)—the Capricorn-driven
evolution of the economy took time, but Pluto colluded with that effort from
Scorpio and the force was inexorable.
Did Bill Clinton know what a Pandora’s Box he was opening as
he signed this bill? Could anyone have foreseen all that has transpired since
then? This Pluto continued transiting the Sibly 12th throughout the
period during which globalization established itself as the “new world order.”
Its placement points to the behind-the-scenes way in which global realities
unfold. Perhaps we should have paid attention to coming dangers when the World
Trade Center was first bombed in February, 1993 under this strident
Capricorn-Scorpio nexus of energies.
When corporations (enabled by global organizations
like the IMF and World Bank) are given the authority to rule exchanges between
nations and heavily influence local economies, there are winners and losers,
and enemies are easily made. Unfortunately, innocent bystanders pay the price.
Is that the new corporate risk/benefit calculus?
Clearly, Pluto played a critical role in NAFTA—and in the “new
world order” that followed. In fact, if we trace the geopolitics of the period
between 1993 (this chart), Pluto’s ingress into Sagittarius in 1995 (enhancing
the ideological thrust of the power dynamics) and Pluto’s passage back and
forth over the Sibly ASC between 2000 and 2001, we can see there are deep astrological
links between growing tensions in the world—especially terrorism—and the rapid,
disruptive way in which a new global financial order was imposed.
That was then…this is
now
Again, we see how key the new Uranus-Neptune cycle in
Capricorn was to jumpstarting the globalization trend. Anti-globalization
economist David Korten sounded a warning about the “new world order” NAFTA
represented in his 1995 book, When
Corporations Rule the World, which certainly fits the global thrust of this
powerful cardinal cycle. Reviewer Tom Nickles introduced this study by saying
that Korten “awakened many Americans to the destructive systemic impacts of the
global economic system and the depths of the structural problems.” A global economic system with structural
problems reads like a keyword phrase for Uranus-Neptune in Saturn-ruled
Capricorn.
So what kind of changes can we expect a new President
Clinton to make in the controversial TPP? By birth, she’s deeply tuned into the
Scorpio forces that pushed NAFTA into existence, so if anyone can apply the
antidote to that “barrel of venomous snakes,” she could be the one. Only time
will tell, but at least she acknowledges she doesn’t have all the answers!
http://media.nbcphiladelphia.com/images/620*349/AP_ 16211130893385-dnc.jpg |
Raye
Robertson is a practicing astrologer, writer and former university English
instructor. A graduate of the Faculty of Astrological Studies (U.K.), Raye
focuses on mundane, collective-oriented astrology, with a particular interest
in current affairs, culture and media, the astrology of generations, and public
concerns such as education and health. Several of her articles on these topics
have been featured in The Mountain Astrologer and other publications over the
years. Raye can be contacted by comment here, or
at: robertsonraye@gmail.com.
© Raye Robertson 2016. All
rights reserved.
[i]John R. MacArthur, The Selling of “Free Trade:” NAFTA,
Washington and the subversion of American Democracy, Hill and Wang, NY, NY,
2000, p. 105.
[ii] Jerry Mander, The Case Against Free Trade, (a
collection of essays by 16 authors), Earth Island Press, 1993, p. 17.
[iii] MacArthur, 8.
[iv] MacArthur, 105.