Edwards Move Makes Trade '08 Centerpiece

The Financial Times headline this morning says it all: "Edwards' Attack on Peru Deal Shifts Debate." The story summarizes John Edwards (D) announcement that he is opposing not only the Peru Free Trade Agreement, but the entire package of White House-backed deals designed to expand the job-killing, wage-destroying NAFTA trade model into South America and Asia - the package of deals that a small handful of Democrats endorsed back on May 10th in a secret pact with the Bush administration. Edwards said the agreements do "not meet my standard of putting American workers and communities first, ahead of the interests of the big multinational corporations, which for too long have rigged our trade policies for themselves."

The move, consistent with Edwards' economic populist campaign, drives a wedge right through the heart of the Democratic presidential primary.

Last week, as noted here on this site, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) announced his support for the Peru deal, and then tried to obfuscate his position under harsh questioning. Meanwhile, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) hasn't said anything about the Peru deal.

As Public Citizen's Lori Wallach said, Edwards move now puts the spotlight on the divide between the progressive movement and what I have called the Money Party (and Edwards has called the Corporate Democrats).

"This is where the rubber hits the road and we find out how far Hillary thinks she needs to go on trade to court the Democratic base," she said. "Peru is about to go to a Senate vote so she can't duck the issue."

You can be sure we'll be hearing a lot of noise about how this deal is supposedly great for average Americans and Peruvians alike. But remember, no major labor, human rights, anti-poverty, environmental, consumer protection or religious group in either the United States or Peru have endorsed the deal. In its international version (not online) the Financial Times, in fact, points out that Edwards announcement was welcomed by, among others, "the heads of Peru's labor movement and Pedro Barretto, the country's archbishop."

Iowa is a state that has been hard hit by lobbyist-written trade deals and that has a history of trade/globalization issues roiling presidential primaries. Edwards' move will likely ensure that's the case again this year, especially considering how split the the Democratic cardidates are in terms of their allegiances to the progressive movement and the Money Party in Washington.

FRIENDLY REMINDER: To the conspiracy theorists, let me reiterate what I have said often in the past: I do not work for nor get paid by nor have officially endorsed any candidate. Please debate the issue, rather than whipping up wild theories unsubstantiated by any evidence.

Cross-posted from Working Assets

Comments

[maryinbelltown]

It's so sad for me that now before I buy a throw rug or scarf, I test the dye on a piece of white cloth. If the color transfers, I know I'll be washing everything a lot, separately, and expensively. Yesterday I passed on a woven kitchen rug for $3.99 from India in Target because the label said, wash separately. In our building that's $1.00 per wash. Not good, not cheap.

[maryinbelltown]

Those cheap goods are not so good. Typical garment - the dye runs in the wash or even stains your skin. We've lost the dye-fast claim for cloth and the no-shrink label for clothes. Buttons fall off but don't worry, extra buttons included. Labels say "dry clean only" or "wash before using." When did my clothes become so dangerous? After NAFTA.

[CyberCitizen]

In recent years, labor standards have had a race to the bottom. Edwards' insistence of higher labor and environmental standards with trading partners will help lift all boats and level the playing field. I am appalled to read about the working conditions, safety, and environmental standards in many foreign countries. I prefer to pay higher prices in return for peace of mind knowing that nobody lost their fingers or lungs making the goods I am buying.

[EW]

John Edwards has been and is again leading on these issues. Now if only the CORPORATE-owned media would cover the issues instead of HRC v BHO and who has the most money from celebrities, (HuffPo), maybe we could get somewhere.

Thanks Mr. Sirota for another great post!

[JoAnnCr]

Thanks for the great analysis.

For those of us who have been watching Edwards since 2003, his move comes as no surprise. He passionately supports workers, the middle class and giving the poor a leg up.

The difference between today and the last election cycle is that Bush has been in office for 4 more years. By now everyone except the ultra rich has been negatively affected by Bush wealthy-take-all policies.

Now people are noticing what John Edwards has always been saying. Its about time.

[TRYKER]

Edwards seems to be full of passion and willingness on a lot of important issues. He has that fire we want to see in someone who is going to LEAD us out of this deep dark valley of Bushco.
Of the top 3, he wins. I think he is leading polls over at Daily Kos...followed by Obama with Hillary 3rd.

[GreedyOldPsychopaths]

David,

I fear that those of us who see today's two distinct classifications of Democrats, the progressives (best idealized by the populism of Edwards) versus the money interest DC DLCers (corporatists such as Hillary), are a minority. There are so many distractions.

Edwards and Clinton truly represent the polar antithesis of Democratic candidates in this election. I hope your assessment of Iowans proves to be correct and positively influences the outcome of primaries in other states.

GOP

[outnow]

John Edwards realizes that globalization is a movement of production to countries with low wages, repressed labor, and weak environmental legislation. The advantage to American consumers is cheap goods. The disadvantage for 100 million wage earners is stagnant real wages.

Real wages, as adjusted for inflation, have grown only 10% in the period 1973 - 2006. Contrast this with a 74% growth of real wages in the 25 years preceding this period.

Trading the availability of cheap goods for loss in growth of real wages is a bad deal for 100 million people who earn wages by labor. Three decades of foreign commercial policy has been a net loss for the vast majority of Americans.

CEOs, lawyers, doctors, journalists, economists, for example, have their jobs protected from international competition. Lowering other peoples wages gives them a bigger piece of the economic pie.

It is not about "protectionism" vs. Free Trade. Gains of the WTO estimate about 2.7 to 6.8 billion in trade - a trifling amount when compared to a month of war in Iraq. When you look at who wins and who loses do not be fooled by the "average" household gain of $10,000 per household! When a hedge fund makes an extra billion, it can bring up the average quite a bit.

HRC and Obama do not want this gravy train for their corporate supporters to evaporate while jobs continue to disappear. Vote for John Edwards.

Disclosure: I am a plaintiffs lawyer who benefits from the economic outsourcing of jobs because your wages are falling. My income is the same because they can't outsource my function - they just want "tort-reform," another GOP fraud to eliminate your rights to just compensation from corporate wrong-doers.

Thanks, David!

[DocTwain]

The more Edwards resembles Kucinich--but with anger!--the better I like him.

[batguano]

Read John Edwards speech from today via the link below. It tells alot about the man, his candidacy and policies. We must do better than the current so-called bush-lite "front runner". Pro-corporate whores and "gotta look tough" candidates who back the war in Iraq and even more war in the ME are NOT the way to regain our sense of NATIONHOOD or honour! Fat cats who rely on the support of the super-rich and powerful and speak with forked tongue, fence-stradling mumbled deceit designed to be all things to all people are NOT leaders of vision and do NOT represent the great majority of Americans!
John Edwards speaking truth and his policies deserves our respect and support!
http://johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20071029-moral-test/

[win2kpro]

When you want the very best man for the job.
JOHN EDWARDS IN '08!

[RobertPaul]

Funny how the only thing you hear about Edwards is his $400 haircuts...unless you go to the internet.

It's true he was written up in the WSJ, but, frankly, I don't pay a lot of attention to the WSJ since it became just one more Murdoch rag.

Thanks for the update David.

Hmmm...maybe this guy does deserve a closer look.

[rixhex56]

Ewards is the only candidate discussing honestly what is surely one of the biggest threats to our nation: corporate corruption of our government. This has been a problem for decades and it is reaching critical mass.

The Founding Fathers rightly feared corporations -- they did, after all, fight a revolution to escape corporate tyranny -- and there were very strict limitations on corporate entities: limited time of existence; limited goals; and limited power. It's time Americans wake up to the fact that one our nation's greatest enemies is the corporate monster that resides within.

[ihavenobias]

Edwards is clearly differentiating himself as the major progressive candidate, especially considering the other recent news about his stance on labor and big business in America:

blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/10/26/edwards-gets-tough-on-business/

(Interesting that the Wall Street Journal story above says "Edwards gets tough on Business" Vs. the Huffpost story that correctly uses the phrase Corporate America rather than "business")

At any rate, I'm liking Edwards more and more.

He's the perfect middle ground between the DLC, corporate democrats who are drowning in special interest money (Hillary, cough cough)and the candidates who attract idealists (Kuninich, etc, who has NO chance of winning the primary, right or wrong).

This should be put in the context that democrats, not republicans, are now receiving more money from big business (a big reversal of a long standing trend). There is nothing "moderate" or "centrist" about being beholden to special interests.

There's also nothing "moderate" about coming to the middle when this country is so strongly opposed to much of the far right policy of this far right administration. In this context, the middle is still right of center, not to mention unpopular (the congressional majority seems to be unaware of that fact).

And there's no "conspiracy" there either. It's the oldest story in politics, you look where candidates get their money because they're likely to have to have their policy influenced by those who funded them.

PS---Don't tell me Edwards can't be progressive because he's rich. Teddy Roosevelt AND FDR both had a LOT more money than Edwards has and they were two of the most economically progressive presidents in history.

In fact, FDR's policies led directly to the most thriving middle class in this country's history.

theyoungturks.com/story/2007/8/27/112911/833

[nancytheragingliberal]

The more I read about John Edwards, the more I like him. Sure, the rest of the Dem's and repub's shift our jobs to other lands for cheap, cheap labor. Do you think they give one hoot for the American people standing in soup lines? I just may vote for Edwards, the Populist. Here is a guy who actually thinks the American people are worth fighting for. My, such a novel idea, John.