Imagine an American politician or corporate executive who openly and
publicly came out in favor of bringing back slavery in America.

Wow! Things would quickly hit the fan, to say the least.  The media would
immediately attack and tear down the offender, who would ultimately have
to apologize.  But even that would not save the perp from career

After all, slavery is the original -- and most severe -- form of racism.  And in
the media, racism is the ultimate sin.

Unfortunately, however, this leads to some logical confusion:  

Why do the media tolerate a world economic system that is openly based
on slavery or, if you prefer, on slave labor?  Even if this system hides
behind the smiley-face name of "Free Trade," there is no doubt that its
workers are slaves. In China and Vietnam, the centers of this system,
salaries range from 35 to 50 cents an hour.  I've seen articles mentioning
wages as low as 19 cents per hour.
Why don't the media attack this form of slavery?  We don't know, so we
must offer various hypotheses:

Because they depend on the advertising revenues of corporate Free
Traders?  Because the media are owned by corporations who are, to some
extent, involved in Free Trade themselves?  Because today's slaves are
oriental, and are very far away, and therefore easy to ignore?  Because no
one ever won a Pulitzer by exposing a foreign dictator doing something

If the media do not like the rightist, patriotic attack on Free Trade in
previous pages, perhaps they will be drawn to the perception of Free
Trade as slavery.  

Or not.