Why Some Democrats Can't Be Trusted On Trade

I still believe that we have the best environment we've had in a very long time on the issue of trade. But, we've got to thank Rep. Gregory Meeks, Democrat from New York, for reminding us that we have to remain vigilant and on the case. Meeks, you see, is one of the dwindling number of House Democrats who still want to protect corporate interests at the expense of workers, here and abroad.

Last week, Meeks participated in a roundtable at the Center for Strategic and International Studies entitled "DECISION 2008: FREE TRADE AND THE 110TH CONGRESS". A colleague of mine on Capitol Hill tipped me off to the transcript of the roundtable, which is posted on the CSIS website. Before getting to the transcript, let me remind you of a few important nuggets: Meeks was one of only 15 Democrats who voted for the Central American Free Trade Agreements -- the CAFTA 15; he shared that honor with, among others, indicted Rep. William "Dollar Bill" Jefferson, who has a habit of storing $90,000 in his freezer. Meeks also had a senior staffer who accused anti-CAFTA activists of racism-- even though opponents of CAFTA included the Hispanic Congressional caucus and workers in the CAFTA-countries.

So, what are Meeks' views these days? At one level, deeply uninformed.

But, yet, when I scratch my head and think about globalization, it really just started with the information age, and that is just 10, 15 years ago. And if I'm not mistaken, poverty preceded that. Those countries were still poor. So globalization could not be the cause of poverty. In fact, when you look at it, especially in area like China and Brazil, et cetera, because of globalization, it is now lifting people out of poverty, and when you look at what we are doing here in the United States also, there is a shifting of jobs, but we are not losing jobs. There is not more individuals that are unemployed. Our unemployment rate is still low.

Actually, Congressman, globalization did not start 10 or 15 years ago. People have always traded throughout human history. The point is that technology has simply changed the rules by which global trade takes place -- it might be faster and harder to control but trade is not a new phenomena. The sooner we start understanding that, the more quickly we can take down words like "globalization" and "free trade" from an exalted altar that has a hypnotizing effect on people.

Second, Congressman, actually, the neo-liberal model -- of which the current so-called "free trade" model is based -- has been a failure when it comes to growth for people in this country. Globally, there is a recognition of the inequality being created. As my colleagues Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot have pointed out, "...even ignoring the re-distribution of income in the last few decades, the U.S. economy during a period in which it was mostly a closed economy (1946-1973) vastly outperformed the increasingly open economy that we have had over the last 33 years, in terms of raising living standards ... The "special interest protectionists" -- highly paid professions, CEO's, pharmaceutical companies and other monopolists -- have been reaping the gains from misnamed "free-trade" agreements for many years, while subjecting the majority of Americans to international competition that has lowered their living standards."

Third, Congressman, the official unemployment in this country may be at a rate you consider acceptable but it does not measure the millions of people who are not counted in the official unemployment rate because they dropped out of the workforce or, more important, of the third of the 30 million people who have lost their jobs since the 1980s, only a third have found jobs that paid as well as the previous work.

Meeks goes on to say:

However, you know, there seems to be somewhat of a contradiction when you really bring it to the people because to my knowledge, I know none of the CAFTA 15 lost their seats because of the vote of CAFTA, every one. I don't know of anyone that really has lost their seat simply because of a trade vote. I really don't. I tried to -- somebody could show me one maybe I have missed. I have had my staff and I look to try to figure out where a member voted for trade, and because of that single vote, they lost his or her election.

It is certainly true that Meeks did not lose his seat -- but it would be hard to argue that it is because his constituents have any idea of his positions on trade or his coziness with corporate interests. On the other hand, Public Citizen has clearly documented the role that trade played in the 2006 elections -- and, I would argue, the role the issue played in Democrats taking back the Congress: fair traders triumphed in many races when they emphasized the economy and the disastrous trade policies that Meeks supports.

Meeks rambles on about his concern about the deal struck between Democrats and the Administration. And, then, he gives a major endorsement for a host of so-called "free trade" agreements -- including one pending with Colombia:

And so you have that kind of problem that is percolating now as far as politics is concerned, and what we have got to figure out is how do we -- how do we resolve it. Now, again, my hope is that we will ultimately push through Panama and Peru and Peru and Panama, but I do have to put the plug in for Colombia because to me, Colombia is absolutely important to be lumped in with all three of those Colombia who is our partner in helping us fighting drugs and doing everything that they can - if you look at the difference between Colombia in the last seven years with President Uribe there, the gains that they have made, how can we turn our backs on them? And then when you look at the opportunities that are there.

And, in fact, I was reading a magazine on the way back from Colombia not too long ago, and they were talking about the Colombian market, how it was soaring despite all of the so-called black clouds around it. Its GDP is going up and there is a lot of companies that are starting to -- and hedge funds and private equity is looking to invest money there. You know, to me, it would be in our best interest to make sure that Peru happens, Panama happens, Colombia happens, and Korea happens.

On the one hand, it's clear that Meeks is far off the reservation compared to the position of the party's leadership. Nancy Pelosi and other key Democrats are opposed to the South Korea deal. But, Meeks' "plug" for the Colombia deal is really extraordinary and shows how his main agenda is to support corporate interests: how does an African-American member of Congress, who professes to be concerned about the poor, get behind a so-called "free trade" agreement with a country where hundreds of trade union leaders and activists have been murdered by right-wing death squads -- death squads with very strong links to the government?

Crazy. And a reason to be vigilant.