For my part, I got mixed feelings about the pros/cons of trade. From the perspective of those communities where old industries have died, you can’t help but feel trade does little to aid their future aside from allowing the good folks there to buy cheap undies at the local Walmart (and no doubt it has helped keep inflation down with the flood a cheap goods into our market). To turn a blind eye from the fate of these communities, as too many politicians do when not-campaigning, is appaling. On the other hand, my sense is that specific agreements like NAFTA or CAFTA or most-favored-nation status for China are not likely the sole or even the predominant causes of the decline of manufacturing in our old industrial heartlands. That trend started long ago.
Our local textile hubs like Lawrence and Lowell didn’t lose jobs to China but to South Carolina. Globalisation more generally (corporate profit seeking) and rapid technological advance are probably every bit if not more responsible as trade deals have been – and no doubt have put pressure on American workers’ wages and benefits. That with the lack of retraining and skills for the folks left behind has fostered the economic decline of these communities.
So I guess I have supported ideas proposed by our candidates – like Hillary’s proposal to take a time out on trade. No new agreements until we have sorted out an economic development plan for struggling communities (like what?). And yet, that is a neither here nor there solution – a fudge. Obama says we’ll renegotiate NAFTA – but even though I am big backer of his, I can’t say I buy that as a remedy either. Labor and environmental standards is the constant refrain from our candidates as necessities before new deals go ahead – but what does that really mean? No child labor I’d assume but anything else? Our trading partners damn sure want to maintain their competitive advantage – what else would they want to make trade deals for?
Everyone is overlooking something here. Free traders proclaim the wholesale benefits of trade without recognizing the costs to those who do lose jobs. Protectionists want to wall off America as if doing so can freeze our economy in time. Both simplistic. But where is the half way point – fair trade, is that real? It all depends where you stand I guess.
My sense is that while both our candidates are campaigning as populist anti-traders, they would govern from a much more centrist position on the issue. They may not press for more agreements, especially as that would entail a war with Congressional Democrats (remember Bill Clinton only passed NAFTA in 1993 with Republican votes), but I wouldn’t expect NAFTA to be rewritten either – the Mexicans or Canadians ain’t gonna budge on that even if our president wanted it.
But beyond the domestic ramifications of trade is of course the global dimension of the issue and what our position means for our relationships and aspirations for global leadership. Our candidates both claim they will restore America’s status and alliances – but it strikes me that a key ingredient in achieving that goal is a open-minded position on trade issues. How can we preach a multilateral approach to security challenges, or actually join the family of nations in accepting a collective responsibility to address climate change, if we are not also willing to engage our partners and make compromises on economics?
A key dimension of efforts to MAKE POVERTY HISTORY for instance – all that stuff that Bono and Bob Geldof are always talking about – is lowering trade boundaries on agricultural goods and reducing farm subsidies, so a poor African farmer can compete in our markets and start making a living off their land. Are our candidates likely to get behind such an effort if president? Bush has for the most part. Of course Hillary or Obama will have to weigh the ramifications for our own agricultural communities, protected as they are from foreign competition (but often seeking trade promotion for their goods) and often benefitting from generous Govt payouts. But as we progressives weigh the benefits of globalisation ourselves, where do we come out on such issues? Our candidates recognize that failed states are likely hotspots for terrorism to grow – and yet a state with a broken economy is that much more likely to fail – is more trade a solution to that? Access to our markets wouldn’t seem to hurt.
Our elections always tend to go this way. The presidential contest is waged in a fishbowl within a fishbowl – with the special interests of certain states forcing candidates to take certain positions – like Iowa and ethanol subsidies, which will likely receive more scrutiny as corn prices skyrocket (and corn is the feed or key ingredient for many other food stuffs) and the world faces a food crisis. A president governs from a broader perspective and an American president no doubt has to advocate for global economic cooperation and openness to remain credible on security. And yet we don’t hear much of that from our candidates.
I guess it all comes down to interdependence and whether America is willing to accept the benefits and make the sacrifices of actively engaging the world on all fronts – let alone have our candidates be candid about these complexities during a campaign. The problem is that with economic globalisation and change there are winners but also losers (at least in the short-term) and the Democratic Party has to speak out on behalf of those who are suffering at home before (or at least at the same time) it can effectively advocate for those who need a hand up abroad. Its a tricky balance for our party to be advocating a more multilateral and diplomatic appeal on security while proposing a relative retreat on trade. Can we have it both ways? I’m not sure we can. Obama or Hillary will find that out if they hopefully make it to the Oval Office.
And this brings me to reference a speech given in Boston by a center-left political leader who certainly has decided in favor of globalisation and all that it brings – but sees in enhanced cooperation a chance to achieve our common ambitions in an interdependent world. The speech was given by Tony Blair’s successor as British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown (and covered here in the Globe ), who seems to be a big brain, but from what I’ve read, is not very popular at this point back home – no doubt in part because he gives really academic speeches in Boston about reforming global institutions rather than exhortations about the economic problems every day folks face in England.
He gave the speech last Friday at the Kennedy Library. Its worth a read if only because it represents an embrace of globalisation from a progressive perspective. Interesting juxtaposition with the rhetoric coming from our candidates.
I certainly don’t, and thank you for this thoughtfull well organized post that at least, has me starting to learn more.
Political campaigns are not built to allow nuance. You are either for something or against it, or deliberately vague enough not to get yourself boxed in. Our party forces candidates to take a pretty anti-trade line even when the economic case may not always be so clear.
<
p>And thanks for your feedback. Given that anti-trade positions have been a big talking point for our candidates I was wondering what people here thought about that.
<
p>Not a big response though – maybe because none of us feel we know enough to judge the pros/cons of the issues surrounding trade. Its not clear cut.
<
p>And hell, who wants to talk about global economics when we can dwell on the who’s up, who’s down nature of the campaign. While we hammer ABC for scandal-mongering, the blogosphere, me included, tend to focus a lot more on the horserace than the issues. I guess its just human nature.
<
p>