Are Democrats Blowing A Chance In A Generation on Trade?

It wasn't a surprise but it is still disappointing that the so-called "free trade" deal with Peru passed the House yesterday--and, unfortunately, with too many Democrats voting for the deal. We missed a teachable moment--a moment to reframe the debate on trade relations with other countries. Here's what the Democratic Party should be saying.

Actually, mainly in the House, we had been moving in the right direction on opposition to so-called "free trade." Fewer and fewer Democrats have been voting for these agreements (for example, the Central American Free Trade Agreement received only 15 Democratic votes in the House). And as Public Citizen's Lori Wallach points out, 117 Democrats voted against the Peru deal:

Despite intense pressure and lobbying from some Democratic leaders, a massive corporate coalition and the White House, a majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives today opposed Bush's Peru NAFTA expansion agreement, echoing the American public's widespread discontent with the status quo trade policy.

That a majority of Democrats opposed the Peru NAFTA expansion - theoretically the least controversial of Bush's remaining trade deals - will put the final nails in the coffins of any further Bush administration expansions of NAFTA to Panama, Colombia or South Korea.

In particular, freshman Democrats voted against the deal, having won their elections partly due to campaign messages that included opposition to so-called "free trade." A drum roll and applause for:

1. Arcuri (NY)

2. Altmire (PA)

3. Boyda (KS)

4. Carney (PA)

5. Cohen (TN)

6. Courtney (CT)

7. Donnelley (IN)

8. Ellison (MN)

9. Hall (NY)

10. Hare (IL)

11. Hirono (HI)

12. Hodes (NH)

13. Johnson, Hank (GA)

14. Kagen (WI)

15. Loebsack (IA)

16. McNerney (CA)

17. Murphy C. (CT)

18. Murphy P. (PA)

19. Richardson (CA)

20. Rodriguez (TX)

21. Sarbanes (MD)

22. Shea-Porter (NH)

23. Shuler (NC)

24. Space (OH)

25. Sutton (OH)

26. Tsongas (MA)

27. Walz (MN)

28. Welch (VT)

29. Wilson (OH)

30. Yarmouth (KY)

On the other hand, 11 freshman voted for the deal:

1. Castor (FL)

2. Clarke (NY)

3. Ellsworth (IN)

4. Gillibrand (NY)

5. Hill, B. (IN)

6. Klein (FL)

7. Lampson (TX)

8. Mahoney (FL)

9. Mitchell (AZ)

10. Perlmutter (CO)

11. Sestak (PA)

As a New Yorker, I can't resist one passing observation: why Yvette Clarke, who represents some of the poorest people in Brooklyn, would vote for this deal, which will do nothing for her constituents, is beyond me--unless this is some way of her catching some campaign cash down the road and/or currying favor with Speaker Pelosi, who also voted for this deal.

So, why should the so-called "free trade" deal with Peru have gone down to defeat and what should the party be saying about trade? The Democrats who voted for the deal are, in my humble opinion, buying a phony framework for trade. They are being told that the main problem with these deals is that they have not included provisions that address labor and environmental standards. If you look at the narrow frame of the deal--that is, is it good that there will be labor and environmental provisions in so-called "free trade" agreements--you can say, "sure, there is some progress." And since the Peru deal did include such provisions, well, then, some Democrats--and the pundit class--argue there is no reason to oppose such an agreement because we have to be open to the world trading system and not become...horror of all horrors...protectionists.

This is a false and politically idiotic frame to accept.

We are not debating "protectionism" versus "free trade." These are just marketing phrases. There is no such thing as so-called "free trade." Once you use that phrase and defend yourself as not being a "protectionist," you are just reinforcing that the debate is a struggle between two concepts, which are really figments of the imagination.

A secondary frame that is at play is the seductive notion that there is a totally new world out there thanks to technology and so-called "free trade" is an essential element of the new world--we hear that rap from the pundits, economists, and, unfortunately, even a labor leader or two.

This is also idiotic. There is nothing new about trade. We've traded around the globe for all of human history. Technology does allow information and capital to move more quickly around the world.

What we are debating are the RULES that will govern how goods and services are exchanged between people. The central problem of so-called "free trade" is this:

So-called "free trade" agreements start out from the wrong premise: that trade agreements should be primarily about protecting investment and capital and, then, only as an afterthought, do the agreements wrestle with how workers and the environment should be treated.

And what are the rules in the so-called "free trade" agreements?

The so-called "free trade" deal with Peru, like the other similar agreements still, include NAFTA-style Chapter 11 foreign investor rights. These rights encourage U.S. companies to move offshore, as well as open up basic U.S. environmental, health, zoning and other laws to attack (they allow a company to argue that a pro-labor or pro-consumer law constitute an unfair trade barrier and, therefore, needs to be eliminated).

These deals still allow companies to attack prevailing wage laws, recycled content and renewable energy policy remain.

These deals still contain agriculture rules that displace millions of peasant farmers increasing hunger,social unrest, and desperate migration.

These deals still allow food safety limits that require us to import meat not meeting our safety standards.

These deals still allow drug companies to extend patent rights that undermine affordable access to medicine.

These deals still let U.S. firms, such as Citibank, demand compensation if, for example, Peru tries to reverse course and end its awful social security privatization.

So, as you can see, the basic structure of the economic system stays in place. What Democrats are left to defend, then, is a vote that changes things around the edges. As I said before, it's not terrible that there are labor and environmental provisions slapped on to the so-called "free trade" deal with Peru. The problem is that, even if those provisions are enforced, they do not change the basic economic framework being imposed on our citizens and people around the world. And, then, Democrats are left promoting things like retraining--a failed policy--to make up for an economic system that is rapacious.

And, politically, this is just dumb. In the short term, I suppose party leaders see support for so-called "free trade" guaranteeing that campaign contributions from corporate lobbyists will still flow to Democrats. But, that is no guarantee for success.

In 1993, NAFTA passed with the enthusiastic support of Bill Clinton (and, I would point out, Robert Reich, his Secretary of Labor). A year later, Democrats lost the House. Much of the blame for that electoral defeat--which then lead to more than a decade of an unraveling of our basic social compact in America, not to mention the bludgeoning of hundreds of millions of people around the world--was laid at the feat of the failed health care proposal promoted by the Administration.

I would argue that the passage of NAFTA played a crucial role, as well. Many union members were disgusted by the specter of a Democratic president flogging a deeply flawed agreement--and it was known, then, that the deal was deeply flawed--and many of them stayed home in November 1994. A bunch voted for Republicans on non-economic issues. Many of the races lost by Democrats in 1994 were lost by slim margins.

Fast forward to today. Not only did Public Citizen document how many freshman Democrats were elected in 2006 because of their clear opposition to so-called "free trade," but we now know that a majority of REPUBLICANS oppose these bad trade deals.

It is simply insane, morally and politically, to continue to support any vestige of so-called "free trade."

So, to wrap up, what should the frame be? Here is a modest, short version:

Democrats believe that the First Principle of trade should be that it enhances the quality of life of communities here and around the world. Democrats believe that every American should have a job with decent wages and dignity at work. We also believe that our country's role in the world should be to promote strong partnerships with other countries so that we can exchange goods, services, and ideas that raise the living standards of people everywhere. When living standards for people around the globe allow them to provide for their families, then, they are not forced to become economic refugees and move to other countries to survive. Democrats also believe that economic progress is possible without poisoning our air, streams, lakes, food and the rest of our environment.

So, with that in mind, we, then, will work to create trade agreements that cherish those ideas and allow corporations to implement those principles.

It's not hard to figure this out. Do we have the will and the courage to reject corporate campaign cash to make this happen?

Comments

[peterg76]

"Are Democrats Blowing A Chance In A Generation on Trade?"

Yes.

All the theories about "free" "trade" managed to fool a lot of people for a long time, but it's not possible to hide the devastating economic consequences any more.

[llamajockey]

It has been 13 years since the NAFTA fiasco.

In all that time why labor has not been able to put together a internet based organization with one tenth the muscle NumbersUSA has on immigration related matters??

NumbersUSA is able to completely destroy the Capital Hill phone system anytime pro illegal immigration/guest worker expansion/Open Borders legislation comes up for a vote. Everytime the congress expands the network, NumberUSA is able to keep shutting it down.

NumberUSA has great software and provides numerous talking points that cover every angle of the debate.

We not going to make a case for "Fair Trade" until all the different pro-worker organizations can unite and mount a truly effective coordinated attack.

You have to scare the living crap out of Congress that folks are watching them and if they continue their job destroying ways that there will be consequences.

[mommadona]

To answer your question

YES.

Rangel is an abomination.
What DEMOCRATIC PERSON would wear pin-stripped suits and side with Corporate Welfare Queen requests.

He is pathetic.

[cynara]

"So-called "free trade" agreements start out from the wrong premise: that trade agreements should be primarily about protecting investment and capital and, then, only as an afterthought, do the agreements wrestle with how workers and the environment should be treated."
~Jonathan Tasini

I totally agree. I think trade can be streamlined, there is a lot of useless beurocratic red tape and pointless tariffs that could stand to be eliminated at every country's borders. Labor laws, minimum wages and environmental laws, are not pointless red tape, they are the very instruments that ensure that trade is fair, ensuring that trade is not propogated at the expense of the workers. Since these free trade agreements fail to address these most important aspects of trade equity (workers right, wages and safety), they are bound to excacerbate the abuse and degredation of these laws, everywhere these agreements are implemented.

[thicky]

i know the nytimes is a mouthpiece for multinational corporate interests but their recent editorial(propaganda) was just too much.

in it, they insultingly, condescendingly, infuriatingly, say that all those who oppose the peru trade deal are against TRADE. period. they are in effect saying that any compassionate human being who is against UNFAIR TRADE DEALS is a barbarian, an animal, since humans have traded amongst themselves from a time before civilization was even conceived.

and again in a supposedly factual article today they state that those who oppose the peru trade deal are against globalization! no, we are just against greedy self-centered corporate globalization.

is the nytimes all elitist propaganda?

[mdtaichi]

Framing the issue as "fair trade" rather than opposition to "free trade" makes considerably more strategic sense. We are all globalists in the sense that our beautiful world and its humanity is one. The failure of humane global development will doom us all to suffering. U.S. and global economies are interconnected and "Fair Trade" is linked to domestic job growth.
John Edwards has the most specific proposals of any candidate to re-negotiate free trade agreements so they are once again fair trade agreements. Regarding "fair trade," John Edwards is for strong labor and environmental standards and against illegal subsidies and currency manipulation. He is also for rigorous enforcement of trade agreements, not just negotiation.
Edwards also advocates for the restoration of tax fairness and the enhancement of competitiveness and job growth. In the breadth and detail of his economic proposals, John Edwards differs substantially from the other candidates. The difference and contrast between Edwards and Clinton is that Edwards has the keener sense of what unfair trade has meant while Clinton double-talks about "trade balance" and "seeing NAFTA with hindsight."
"John Edwards is informed by the fact that 300,000 taxpayers make half of the nation"s income, while 150 million make the other half, which represents the greatest income inequality in this country since 1928. This reality has been exacerbated by the combination of unfair tax practices, the ill effects of unfair globalization, and trade policies that mostly enrich multinational corporations and certainly not workers. Only John Edwards has called for creating a new test for trade: Will new deals benefit working families, not just multinational corporations?" - Leo Hindery, senior economic advisor
http://johnedwards.com/issues/working-families/
"It"s time we honored work in this country, not just wealth." - John Edwards

[WASanford]

Isn"t it clear that this is not going to be changed by congress? That the representatives we send there are bought before they reach the top of the capitol steps on their first day? Then what can we do to change it? We can start by voting with our feet and our pocketbooks, that"s what!
Let"s get our stupid asses out of the big box stores! How many of you are going to Toys R Us and buy Mattel"s dangerous crap for your kids this Christmas? The same thing applies to Target, K-Mart, Wal-Mart, etc.
We can stop pulling into the nearest gas station to fill our cars with $4/gallon gasoline. Find a nearby Citgo station and buy your gas there. The profit will go Venezuela but isn"t that preferable to feeding the oil companies in whose stead we are fighting in Iraq?
In short, if we keep buying this crap, they will only be to happy to keep selling it to us. Stop buying their crap and let them go to hell!

[factanonverba]

I haven't had the time to look at the particulars of two of the three Latin American FTAs, though I've followed the Colombian FTA somewhat more closely. The problem with these FTAs generally is that the trade is really free. It is difficult for me to conceive the rational that policy makers in Latin America to open up their markets, especially their agriculture regimes, to American competition. The net effect is that the agricultural sectors in Latin America are wholly disimmediated leading to widescale unemployment in the rural economy. If the idea is throw people off the land, it works but then where do these people go. In the case of Mexico and Guatemala, the effect was a massive migration to the United States, an option less readily available to Colombians and Peruvians. It is a transfer of wealth fromn the poorest sectors that actually require the most help to the wealthiest sectors both in Latin America and the US. In the Colombian case, flower exports and underwear manufactures will profit handsomely but these are already thriving sectors of the Colombian economy. In the Peruvian case, I suspect large shrimp and fishing businesses will benefit again at the expense of small fisherman who will see their waters stripped of everything alive. Both countries have a large sugar business but with American subsidies to sugar interests here, I hardly see how the Peruvian sugar industry will compete. Colombia's sugar should be able to fend off intrusion but probably by having to cut costs, i.e. wages. So in my mind, these FTAs have very really costs to these Latin American countries. For the US, the impact is minimal given the small amount of trade that occurs between these economies but it will allow for free capital movements and with that the US gains a stranglehold on these economies should they ever try to waiver from failed neo-liberal economic policies.

[Poboy]

The Democrats allowed a vote to come to the floor of the House that A MAJORITY of their caucus was against.

In other words, the Democrats divided their caucus deeply to give the Republicans a victory.

Go figure!

Their behavior is disgusting and why I am not a Democrat.

[mcearlgrey]

Tell 'em Jon.

I voted for you in the Democratic primary for Senate last year, and to borrow a phrase from Trent Lott, I think that if you had won, we wouldn't be having all these problems we have now.

[DeWayne]

It is time for all American citizens to admit that our political system of DEM and GOP is more than broken, it is totally corrupt and contrary to the will and needs of (all) American (common) citizens.

Only a total fool cannot realize at this time that both DEM and GOP hierarchy has sold us out, and it is long past getting rid of the entire upper tier of this bunch of maggots.

Hell will freeze over before I vote again for (either) DEM or GOP political party. I strongly advise everyone else in this nation to do the same.