Obama, Clinton & the NAFTA Kabuki Dance

We are watching something truly absurd - and that says a lot for the generally absurd realm of American politics.

Earlier this week, we saw Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) promise to call a "time out" on passing NAFTA-style trade deals if she is elected president - a promise that was made just four days after she quietly announced she would be casting a vote to enact a vote for the Peru Free Trade Agreement - the latest NAFTA-style trade deal moving through Congress.

Now, today, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is criticizing Clinton for being a part of the previous administration that passed NAFTA-style trade deals. It's fair criticism, of course - but not if you yourself have already promised to vote for the same NAFTA-style trade policy in the near future.Yes, Obama's criticism comes just a few weeks after Obama himself declared he, too, would be voting for this same NAFTA-style trade policy moving through the Senate.

The Associated Press reports that Obama told an audience of union workers that he "vowed to fight any deal that doesn't protect workers and the environment." Clinton has made the same promises. Both square this circle by claiming the NAFTA-style deal they are going to vote for does include strong labor and environmental protections. Yet, Washington's top corporate lobbyists have long ago told the public that the supposedly strong labor protections in the NAFTA-style deal he is going to vote for "cannot be read to require compliance." Meanwhile, no major environmental, labor, human rights, anti-poverty, consumer protection or religious group in either Peru or the United States has endorsed the deal. In fact, most of them have put out statements strongly criticizing the deal.

Obama and Clinton also both say that they are going to oppose proposed NAFTA-style deals with Colombia and South Korea, based on their complaints about those specific countries. That's good, but it still means they are endorsing the NAFTA trade model - which is the most important point of all. As I told Alternet's Joshua Holland regarding Clinton's position:

"What's going on here is that she is endorsing the NAFTA trade model, but saying that she has problems with certain countries' specific behaviors. And that's what's really telling. She is saying she has no problem with trade deals rigged to crush American and foreign workers on behalf of Wall Street, and that the only real reason to ever oppose that model is if there are other problems/complications with the specific country in question."

So let's just step back and ask a simple question: What the hell is going on here? Why when polls show overwhelming bipartisan opposition to NAFTA-style trade policies are two leading Democratic candidates talking out of both sides of their mouths on the issue? NAFTA-style trade policy is so unpopular that even Republicans like Mike Huckabee are using it to climb in Republican presidential primary polls. So, again, what the hell is going on here with Clinton and Obama?

This is a tougher question than it seems. Some of it has to do with the culture of Washington - a culture that, as I reported in a recent syndicated column, is dominated by a revolving door of insiders who seamlessly glide between raking in huge cash as corporate lobbyists, advising candidates on economic policy and holding high government positions.

Both Clinton and Obama's campaigns are, to varying extents, immersed in this culture, whether it's Clinton's lead consultant simultaneously running a union busting operation, or whether it is Obama's chief adviser being the former top staffer to Bob Rubin - the icon of the Wall Street Democrats who has personally threatened Democratic presidential candidates should they represent the populist line.

Many of these hangers on are hoping for a high level administration job if their candidate gets elected - but they want to make sure they still have the option of living it up on K Street if their candidate loses, and so their advice tends to be cautious on corporate issues like trade. They tell their candidates not to actually represent the will of the public, but to make sure not to offend Big Money.

Then, of course, there is Big Money itself. Clinton has raked in so much corporate cash that she was recently celebrated on the cover of Fortune Magazine. Obama, meanwhile, is Wall Street's darling, according to campaign finance reports. These contributions to both candidates come from industries that have a stake in preserving the NAFTA-style status quo - and, as anyone who has worked a day in politics knows, big campaign checks come with an expectation of complicity.

And so this is what we get - a kabuki dance from candidates who pray that voters are too dumb to figure it all out. Here we have two candidates going before workers telling them they will really represent them by opposing sell-out trade deals, and then telling the elite political Establishment that actually, they will continue voting for those very same trade deals when they hit the floor of the Senate. Perhaps even more ridiculous, we have one of these candidates - Obama - actually attacking Clinton for supporting the very job-killing, wage-destroying trade model that he himself has already said he is going to vote for.

Give credit where credit is due - Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich have all refused to equivocate on this issue coming down the pike. They have all said they strongly oppose the Peru Free Trade Agreement. They realize in the era following the "for it, before I was against" it fiasco, you should probably straight-shoot voters by telling them whether you are for it or against it - for trade policies that crush the middle-class, or against them. And trying to pretend to be both is just silly.

Some of these politicians voicing criticism of our lobbyist-written trade policies admittedly have mixed records on this issue, but at least they aren't so desperate to appease Big Money that they are resorting to demeaning voters by treating us like we're idiots. Treating voters with a shred of respect doesn't sound like much, but in our absurd political system, even that is a rarity these days.

Cross-posted from CAF

Comments

[SRegnet]

You would think that if NAFTA-type agreements
were of any value to middle-class Democratic
voters, Clinton & Obama should be providing
persuasive explanations of how this is so.

This constituency has not been helped at all
by so many jobs moving off-shore. It does seem
as if it's only the wealthy classes who have
benefited. Why exactly should middle-class
Democrats support this?

Kucinich is looking better & better, but perhaps
Edwards/Kucinich would be acceptable?

[peterg76]

Supporting the NAFTAesque "free" "trade" deals is not exactly the kind of treason that we see from Bush and Cheney, but it is a close second.

[eddiestardust]

Finally a blogger who understands the issue!

Both Obama and Hillary are cut from the same cloth, both like the NAFTA style trade agreements and because of this support

BOTH ARE AGAINST HARDWORKING AMERICAN WORKERS!

[ljsfolly]

What has NAFTA brought us? More movement of jobs out of the states. More investment of others outside the United States in our countries land and resources. More money out of country than in because the tax breaks given are huge to move out of country. Rates on inport/exports are based on people biased againest us. Unsafe food and items like toys which do us harm. Lack of investment in our education of our young. You can go on and on and it all comes to a sell out of the citizens of this country. It is a give away which the giving is ours mostly alone.

[EspressoAtNoon]

Thanks for bringing this very important display of hypocrisy to the forefront.

I'd expect this much from Hillary, but Obama? I'm starting to go cold on Obama.

After the spitzer license endorsement from Obama and now this I'm REALLY leaning towards John Edwards.

I really thought Obama was going to be different. He's becoming like Hillary "lite".

[cynara]

"Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich have all refused to equivocate on this issue coming down the pike"

Thank you, David, for pointing out where other candidates stand on the issue (though I will add Mike Gravel is also anti-CAFTA). We need to remember that we have alternatives besides Clinton and Obama, that are more in touch with the Democratic Base.

At the moment, I am leaning towards Chris Dodd. He is for restoring the constitution, and on top of wanting to repeal NAFTA, has made the connection between the conditions in Mexico caused by NAFTA and our illegal immigration issue. I like Kucinich as well, but I know he'll probably never get elected...

[WintonyMay]

Mr. Sirota:
I appreciate the presentation of your conclusions and the bases for them. However, I'd rather hear the two, targeted, candidates' rationales for their support of the PFTA, before I make my own conclusions as to whether they were consistent or, as you have intimated, duplicitous.
WintonyMay.

[cheforacle]

Supporting the Peru trade agreement is consistent with Obama's stated trade policy in that it differs from the other mentioned trade agreements to the extent that it does contain labor and environmental protections not integrated into NAFTA or CAFTA. Obama has never said he was against all trade agreements and he's taken flack on the campaign trail for supporting the Peru agreement. He has opposed other trade agreements that did not contain such provisions. We need good agreements because the economy will not create new manufacturing jobs in old industries. America constantly must develop new industries such as renewable energy sources and medical breakthroughs.

[Danny]

Being against these "trade agreements" isn't protectionist. It's self-preservationist. Our heirs will judge us to have been stupid in going along with these insane policies. My usually very liberal member of congress voted FOR this trade deal. What are they paying him, or what are they threatening him with?

Read the book THE SHOCK DOCTRINE: the rise of disaster capitalism, by Naomi Klein, just published.

[coolkraft]

mandatory public financing is the only way to go....these politicians are all beholden to special interests...if you eliminated all the jobs for illegals we would have no border problems they simply would not come...if you had a fair balance of trade we would not have lost so many jobs to outsourcing...no one seems to care about the middle class..what will they do if the middle class has no jobs to pay taxes to run this lousy government????
I am now an independent...these parties suck

[bklynsam]

The AFL-CIO said they could not support it, but said:

"The AFL-CIO welcomes the progress made by the House and Senate Democratic leadership in negotiating improvements to key sections of the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement (Peru FTA). Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel and Trade Subcommittee Chairman Sander Levin have negotiated new provisions that represent real progress in the crucial areas of workers' rights and the environment, which the AFL-CIO has fought to achieve for many years.

How we deal with labor rights and the environment have been central to the debate over globalization and its impact on working families, both here in the United States and around the world. We hope these new labor provisions will provide a starting point for future efforts to strengthen and effectively enforce protections for workers in the global economy. The new provisions will not solve all the problems workers face, but they will provide another important and useful tool to pressure governments and corporations to respect workers' fundamental human rights."

(snip)

"As amended, the Peru FTA marks an important step toward a trade model that will benefit working people in both countries. Congress will need to provide strong and consistent pressure on the executive branch to ensure that these newly negotiated provisions are effectively implemented and enforced, since these provisions cannot serve their objective if the executive branch does not enforce them. Funding to help build the capacity of workers to exercise their labor rights, and thereby improve their working conditions, is also vitally important.

We applaud the considerable efforts that brought about these changes. However, these reforms represent only one aspect of what is wrong with U.S. trade policy. Further work is required to improve the template for future trade agreements, and to ensure that current trade agreements are energetically and consistently enforced. We will continue to fight to strengthen and repair these provisions in any future trade agreements."

They clearly showed where there could be improvements. It's not perfect by any means, but it cannot be considered 'the same as NAFTA'.

[MidwestBlue]

Eventually, the word will get out on these sell-outs. I hope it won't be too late for voters in the primaries (and caucuses). That said, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the only consistent candidates on this issue . Why not look more closely at them, David Sirota? Especially Ron Paul, who's really taking off. Clinton and Obama don't care about the American worker.

[cblcar]

Thank God someone is finally talking about NAFTA and the equally nauseous up-coming Peru deal. We need to holds Clinton's and Obama's feel to the fire on this one. Biden gets my vote. He's the only one with a sensible solution AND the foreign policy experience to lead us in this very dangerous world mess Bush has created.

[outnow]

David,

Thanks for pointing out that some Democratic candidates are supporters of NAFTA. Robert Rubin was the mentor of Bill Clinton's support for NAFTA despite the warning given by Ross Perot. That "sucking sound" you hear is corporate dollars going from Wall Street to K-Street, as well as manufacturing jobs going overseas. The Wall Street bankers and their clients make big money off of outsourcing your job. There are no environmental or labor rights abroad and they can work for several dollars per day. Meanwhile, we get some cheap goods here but no jobs. HRC and Obama know this but will not be honest with you. The other Democratic candidates are being honest.

[NABNYC]

All the trade agreements should be considered subject to cancellation or revision if appropriate. If the agreement is contrary to the interests of the people of this country, we would have no problem showing that it was the result of bribery of our politicians.

It is ridiculous for progressive to argue that more trade agreements are okay if they include provisions requiring a respect for the environment and labor in other countries. How naive can people be? What difference does it make to an American who has been thrown out of work if the company is nice to the new employees in Peru, to whom they pay $1.00/day.

We need to stop standing up for the rights of other countries, and start standing up for our own rights. There is no reason working people need to apologize about directly telling the politicians that their job is to make sure every American has a job with benefits and a living wage. The politicians can figure out how to accomplish that or resign from office. If the corporations gave fewer bribes to the politicians, they could pay more to their American workers.

We get these pleas from the politicians that trade agreements help "our" corporations. Who buys this bs. They are not "my" corporations. I do not benefit from their use of slave labor. It is not in my best interest to have my neighbors thrown out of work. As far as I'm concerned, any American business that takes a substantial number of jobs out of the country should lose the right to operate in this country. Throw them and their CEOs out. Let them move to China and live with their slave labor.

And the same is true for immigration. Do not come out with proposals to help the people from other countries until you have proposals to help your own. You don't give away jobs to others when you do not have enough jobs here at home.

Edwards. He's the only one who is addressing these issues.