Will Democrats Follow John Edwards On Trade--And Win Elections?

Aside from the Iraq war, nothing is more important in this election than where the next president will stand on how the rules will be set in the economy, particularly when it comes to trade. There is no greater threat to average Americans--a greater threat than the budget deficit, or the admittedly awful sub-prime mortgage scandal--than the imposition of so-called "free trade" regimes on our workers and workers around the world. Over the weekend, John Edwards took another step towards cementing his opposition to so-called "free trade."

On Saturday, he announced his opposition to the so-called "free trade" deal with Peru:

Today I am announcing my opposition to the Peru Trade Agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration and being considered for approval by Congress. Despite strong efforts by many Democrats in Congress, labor organizations and fair trade advocates to embed international labor standards into the Agreement, what resulted were references to general principles and not specific standards. And the Agreement still replicates and in fact expands all of the other most damaging aspects of past trade agreements. In short, this agreement does 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 and against American families.

For far too long, presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements, agreements like NAFTA in 1994 and the WTO in 1995, promising in each case that they would create millions of new jobs and trade surpluses. Instead, since these agreements were put into place we have lost millions of manufacturing jobs, seen wages decline, and storied U.S. firms close - and towns all over this country have been devastated. And we have run up larger and larger trade deficits. This irresponsible squandering of our national wealth now makes it increasingly difficult for us to control our own destiny.

NAFTA, which was one of our worst trade agreements ever, was written by corporate interests and insiders in all three countries, and it has served them well. But it absolutely hasn't served the interests of regular workers in any of the three countries. When NAFTA was passed, the American people were promised that by 2006 U.S. exports to Mexico would exceed Mexican imports by $10 billion. But right now, hundreds of thousands of lost American jobs later, Mexican imports are $70 billion more than U.S. exports to Mexico. And Mexican workers have lost too - average wages for Mexican workers have declined since NAFTA was passed.

Pay attention, in particular, to Edwards' description of NAFTA:

NAFTA, which was one of our worst trade agreements ever, was written by corporate interests and insiders in all three countries, and it has served them well.

That is precisely right. There is no such thing as so-called "free trade." It is just a marketing phrase. We have always had trade among people around the global as long as humans have communicated with each other. The only question is: what are the rules under which trade takes place? It has nothing to do with being "free"--this is about establishing power.

Edwards is also quite sensitive, throughout his statement to the fate of workers outside of our country. This is so crucial to hear from a presidential candidate--if we are to repair our relations with other countries, one critical step the next president must take is to cease imposing on other countries economic systems that are crippling to the livelihoods and economic security of other people. Take this example in Edwards' statement:

The damage threatened by these NAFTA expansion agreements extends beyond the United States. Buried deep in the 800-page text of the Peru FTA are ambiguous provisions that could allow U.S. banks to demand compensation if Peru reverses its disastrous social security privatization. That's right, the Peru FTA could lock in the misery facing millions of the elderly and ill in that extremely poor country all to ensure U.S. firms can profit on what should be a government service available to all in the first place.

Edwards opposition to so-called "free trade" is not new. Back in August, he made a very clear statement about trade and took a very big swing at corporate insiders.

Edwards set forth four principles on trade that I think are a very solid guide for our party:

First, our multilateral and bilateral trade deals and unilateral trade preferences must help America. They must benefit American workers and their communities. This means they must: stick to trade and not meddle with our domestic Buy America laws, our nation's investment policies, and our food safety and health laws; have at their core strong protections for the global environment and basic labor standards, such as prohibiting sweatshops and child labor and protecting the right of workers to join unions; and include prohibitions against illegal subsidies and currency manipulation and other trade cheating of the sort that is in fact encouraged under most of our current trade deals.

Second, our trade policies must also lift up workers around the world. Making sure that workers around the globe are treated fairly and share in the gains of trade is the right thing to do morally, it's the right thing to do economically, and it will make us here in America safer and more secure. We can never again condone trade agreements with countries where there is violence against workers or they are denied just wages and working conditions.

Third, we must understand in negotiating trade agreements that "one size does not fit all". We need to be realistic about global differences in form of government, in the rule of law, in the relative state of countries' economies, and in the day-to-day trade and business practices of potential trading partners. How utterly foolish is it that we treat China with its massive controlled and manipulated economy, Mexico with its porous three thousand mile-long border with the U.S., and developing countries in South America and Africa, as all the same when it comes to trade?

Fourth, our trade deals must be fairly and fully administered. For free trade to be fair, it must be based on rules, and then those rules must be followed. The top prosecutors at the Department of Justice should be responsible for enforcing our trade agreements, and when I am president I will insist that they prosecute all cases of illegal foreign subsidies, currency manipulation, and unfair trade practices.

Aside from the ethical and moral opposition to so-called "free trade," Edwards is making a very smart political choice for the Democratic Party. I recently pointed out a nationwide poll that showed that a majority of REPUBLICAN voters oppose so-called "free trade." Do we need to put flashing lights on that fact for those Democratic Party leaders who would still prefer to side with the corporate insiders, as opposed to the voters?

My biggest hope is that Edwards' statement draws similar positions from the other presidential candidates, and the leadership of the Democratic Party. The Wall Street Journal noted, not to long ago, that Edwards is dictating the debate in the Democratic party. For the sake of millions of workers here and abroad, I hope his statement on the Peru agreement is another example where the rest of the Democratic field will follow. We have to put aside our personal support for candidates and urge all candidates to understand the dangers of so-called "free trade" and call on them to pledge that, if elected president, they will adopt the principles Edwards articulates on trade.

Comments

[maryinbelltown]

I don't want to hear this ever again, "He may have lost but he was so good for the party." Howard Dean was right. John Edwards is right. So what are you willing to do to do?

[batguano]

John Edwards has just today given a speech which gives a view into his person and candidacy. This is well worth reading and will speak more than any of us can on his ideals, integrity and policies. The so called Dem "front runner" in this most important election of our time represents, I believe, a "lite" version of what we have seen all too much of during the past 6 years of the Bush/Neocon regime. We need a person of true vision and integrity to restore our NATIONHOOD and honor! I believe John Edwards is such a person.

http://johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20071029-moral-test/

[Stevelagain]

John Edwards won ONE election, stabbed his state in the back and never won another.

I don't see much leadership because a leader has followers. No one is following John Edwards. Which should tell you there is something very wrong with his "two America's" approach.

[rixhex56]

What do YOU think is "wrong" with his approach?

[rixhex56]

One quick thought on leadership: Most "leaders" do not have followers when they first begin to lead. That is part of what distinguishes them from the rest of the "followers". At the moment, it appears to me that followers are blindly following followers with nobody truly leading them.

Edwards is one of the few who is truly trying to lead. The problem is that the bleating sheep are afraid to move forward.

[annefrank]

Steve - thanks for confirming the corporate media has promoted "hope" and "nostalgia" from the gitgo! while dissing and dismissing John Edwards telling us the SYSTEM IS RIGGED!
Many Democrats whine about the corporate media while being duped by the media's shiny distractions.

[INQUIRER]

Right, stevel, but you also try to defend George Bush as a leader, which sort of invalidates your worthiness to decide.

[EW]

John Edwards has led on so many big issues but the corporate media has gone out of its way NOT to cover his policy speeches but rather haircuts and houses, utter B.S.

Hopefully the people will find the info themselves via alternative sources.

[JoAnnCr]

Policy: The second most important reason to vote for Edwards.
Honesty: The first.

[olephart]

"they will adopt the principles Edwards articulates on trade."

The Democrats, led by Hillary and the DLC, will back Wall Street and corporate written trade bills to the detriment of their supporters. The campaign contribution checks have already been cashed, its business as usual. The Democratic rank and file will be sheared as befits the sheep that they are. As with the Ron Paul supporters on the right, only the Democratic fringe will have a clue as to what's really going down.

[ihavenobias]

You're right. The annoying thing is, Hillary will continue to be painted as "moderate".

My favorite quite is "all things in moderation, including moderation".

The meaning of moderate fluctuates over time.

In the context of this radical, corrupt and special interest driven administration (is that really a fringe statement considering how wildly unpopular Bush is at the moment?) "the middle" is actually *right of center*.

I don't know why so many people miss that point. It's not ALWAYS a virtue to simply be "in the middle" of any given position. *Sometimes* it is and sometimes it isn't (heck, you might even say what I just said is truly moderate).

In a sense, ALWAYS being moderate (just for the sake of being in the center) can be as bad as ALWAYS being on one end of the spectrum.

I mean, I understand that compromise is important generally speaking, but so is not compromising your principles, especially when your dealing with an administration that is supported by less than 25% of the population.

theyoungturks.com

[annefrank]

But many of the Democratic fringe have opted for Obama Girl and Mafia videos - and discounted Edwards substanstive policies.

[batguano]

As dsbsh points out, John Edwards is once again LEADING on policy matters and not merely responding, as the Dem "front runner" does repeatedly to Edwards proposals and policies! He has done so consistantly and continues to be out front in setting forth REAL policy that benefits not only American workers, but our "trading partners" workers as well. He articulates his positions CLEARLY and thouroughly, and doesn't just put foward a forked -tongued, fence-stradling mumble of deceit! He is NOT in thrall to corporate interests or the war machine! He has shown and continues to show TRUE VISIONARY LEADERSHIP! John Edwards is showing the ways for progressives to win in '08, and is not just another corporate whore to the richest among us! Would the other "Dems" who make so much money in campaign contributions from the rich and powerful have a tenth as much integrity and leadership qualities as John Edwards! And that means for the so-called "front-runners" who weasle and pander so effectively and consistantly!

From trade policy to the environment, from education to health care, from the criminal wars of the Bush/NeoCon regime to restoring America's honor around the world, John Edwards (along with some other "unelectable" candidates) is leading the way. He deserves our respect and support!

[ihavenobias]

Who exactly benefits when you ask 300 million Americans to compete with over 6 billion people, half of which will work for $2 a day?

Okay, so we get to buy cheap DVD's and other unnecessary stuff to clutter our living space.

But do we really benefit when wages and benefits continue to not keep pace with inflation on *essential* goods and services (housing, heat, transportation, food, etc), you know, stuff we actually need?

There is no such thing as "free trade". There is trade that (essentially) benefits multinational corporations and there is trade that benefits labor and nations.

I don't see corporations fighting to ease copyright protections to further "free" anything. They only use the word free when it means more profits at the expense of workers.

PS---Part of what the founding fathers revolted against was the *maximum* wage laws in England in the 1700's that ensured the lower class would never break out of poverty (and therefore would never have any power to enact charge in a political process).

As Thom Hartmann points outs, today we have maximum wage laws but they are much more subtle. For example, the threat of moving your job to India is, in a sense, a maximum wage law. Same deal with low skill workers and insourcing.

theyoungturks.com

[Poised]

"I recently pointed out a nationwide poll that showed that a majority of REPUBLICAN voters oppose so-called "free trade." "
This is a very smart piece. I'm an Independent who likes the Edwards message very much. The pendulum has swung so far from center, I believe that all but the most thoughtfree ideologues on the right can be influenced by Edwards' arguments in favor of fairness for US workers.
In the financial news this morning we see Warren Buffet in China saying, basically, it's not China's fault that we have a trade imbalance, it's ours. So what are we going to do about it? (That imbalance is reflected in jobs lost to companies overseas.)
What surprises me most is the lack of press coverage Edwards suffers. How can the medidiots be persuaded to stop slathering over Hillary, who's essentially just Bush in drag?

[alkamm]

Despite Edwards's clear leadership on popular issues such as free trade and unions, the pundits clamor to annoint Hillary.
Could this clamor be orchestrated by some of the corporate news media moguls who wish to continue their corporations' dominance in areas not directly related to media, but certainly areas that could benefit from media slanting?
I hope that Edwards, as a blogger said recently, shocks the world in Iowa and goes on to fightthe corporate socialism that Bill Curry has identified. As a trial lawyer used to defeating corporate lawyers, Edwards is the right man for the times.
Never underestimate the people's power to upset polls and pundits with their astonishing power to understand who is on their side.

[darcy]

Poised, you wrote:

"What surprises me most is the lack of press coverage Edwards suffers. How can the medidiots be persuaded to stop slathering over Hillary, who's essentially just Bush in drag?"

You probably know the answer to your own question: the corporate-owned media are MAKING Hillary the front-runner, trying to fool the people into thinking she's inevitable.

Nothing scares the corporate elite more than John Edwards and his populist movement. I hope he kicks ass in the primaries; I know I'm voting for him and I did last time as well.

[dsbsh]

Not so fast. I'm not a Hillary fan, but the corporate media aren't supporting her. They're covering her (and Obama) because she's a big story; "Hillary vs. Obama" is an exciting press narrative, as is "Hillary vs. Guiliani." But if you look at her actual coverage, it's largely negative (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071029/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_media_coverage_1;_ylt=AllKUzg1ESng7h9Nx16OKGEE1vAI), and if you think for a second the MSM will back Hillary over the GOP nominee, you're in for a rude awakening.

Still, the criticism of coverage of the front-runners at the expense of the other candidates and their ideas is well made.

[AmericanSon]

"Free Trade" is basically a way to give more profit to the multinational corporations. A better idea is to use tariffs to regulate how much crap we import, increase our manufacturing in America, increase wages for the average Joe and eliminate the Federal income tax on individuals. The country started off by funding the government solely with tariffs. Let's get back to our beginning and use tariffs the way the founders intended: to fund the government, without an income tax or sales tax.

[ihavenobias]

I agree on the tariffs but it's not realistic to completely fund government on tariffs.

About 1/3 of federal revenue between WWI and WWII came from tariffs, and the size of government has grown since then (why we have income taxes).

PS---Why does China have a 20% import tariff on cars coming into China but we have a tiny 2% import tariff on cars coming into the US? Does that make any sense?

theyoungturks.com

[AmericanSon]

Our imports of goods and services in 2006 amounted to $2,204 billion. (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.pdf)
Our total Federal spending in 2006 was $2,387 billion, of which $1,228 billion was spent on the military (http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm).
So, obviously, we cannot raise enough money to run the Federal government on tariffs, unless they were over 108% average. I'm not necessarily against such a high tariff rate, and on some goods, such as petroleum, the tariff should be so high that it forces us to develop alternatives for transportation, such as battery electric vehicles (manufactured in the U.S., of course).
So, where can the rest of the money come from?
a) Increase income taxes on the rich, while eliminating them entirely for the poor and middle class.
b) Increase income taxes on multinational corporations, while reducing them on small businesses.
c) Reduce military spending by getting out of Iraq, Europe, South Korea, and 80+ other nations where we have military bases. We have been in South Korea and Europe for over 60 years. They are wealthy countries now; let them provide for their own defense.
d) Stop development of all nuclear weapons and the Reagan/Bush/Bush Star Wars program.
Just some ideas. Surely there are some creative economists out there that can make a better argument than I to correct our trade imbalance

[zeldamae]

OK. I meant the top running democratic candidates in that last post. I don't want to deny Dodd and Kucinich their own democratic platforms--it's just
that I still feel there is a little hope for Edwards to be on the ticket, and that is what I, from the democratic wing of the democratic am clinging to.

[zeldamae]

Well the other democratic candidates have consistently followed/stolen from John Edwards except when it is an issue that would disturb their Republican base. What I really hope is that the democratic voters would not follow, but lead John Edwards to the nomination.

Gale

[JohnHeckmanWright]

Thank you! I do love the Huffington Post, but far too much of the democratic coverage in the past few months has been focused on Hilary and Obama. It's time for everyone to realize that the true democrat among the front runners, the one who has the strongest stand against the war and against free trade, has the best plans to protect the environment and the working class, and is endorsed by the environmentalist lobby as well as a leading majority of unions is John Edwards.

[TimmySlagle]

Edwards can win on the issue, but that doesn't mean he's right.

Average wages have risen steadily since 1995

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/central.html

as have jobs

http://www.crcmich.org/PUBLICAT/2000s/2001/FiscalUpdate/sld006.htm

Saying that there has been no increase in jobs or wages since the trade agreements passed, might be good Politics, but it is not based in truth.

[tbone99]

As have living expenses, housing and energy costs!
Edwards - really the only frontrunner addressing the
plight of the working stiff.

We can't all be investors -somebodys got to build the houses, care for the children, take care of the ill and provide the ingenuity and muscle.
And we should be able to afford decent housing,food, transportation and medical care for those efforts.Americans and Peruvians alike.

[RS]

"We can't all be investors"

Boy, did you hit the bullseye, tbone99. And we certainly all can't be lucky enough to INHERIT A FORTUNE when a relative or close friend kicks the bucket.

[nottoworry]

Try living in the real world or at least do your homework from facts on real people.

[Camel54]

Health care premiums have shot up 78% in
the past six years while wages have grown by 19%.

That's one example of the excellent point tbone99 makes. If you add in the increase in energy costs, which have translated into the tripling of commodity prices, anyone can see the apparent income decline.

[RS]

Hey TimmySlagle--your arguments are FATALLY FLAWED for two reasons:

First, regarding average wages, you have NOT FACTORED IN INFLATION. You also are obviously factoring in the ASTRONOMICAL AVERAGE INCREASE of CEO pay.

Second, AT LEAST 75% of the new jobs that have been created since 1995 pay near or below POVERTY-LEVEL WAGES. These include "McJobs" and jobs at WalMart that pay few benefits.

[TimmySlagle]

"AT LEAST 75% of the new jobs that have been created since 1995 pay near or below POVERTY-LEVEL WAGES"

Link?

Since the Median wage has INCREASED since 1995, wjhat you are saying is entirely impossible. Such a shift would have pulled the median income down.

[Oldchef]

If you have a group of 10 people(to keep this simple) and 1 makes $1,000,000 and the other 9 make $20,000, then the average wage is $118,000, but that doesn't make those other 9 wealthy, they're still struggling on their $20,000. Get off the repub message points and look at the real truth.

[TimmySlagle]

According to the charts Average AND Median wages have risen since 1995.

[beef33]

Yeah this is all well and good but what is more troubling is the money that is behind Clinton. She takes the K Street NAFTA type driven money and is trying to buy the election. We are starting to hear the same garbage from her about the "middle class" which her phony lying husband used so well. Yet her real ties are to k street israel and defense contractors. Edwards speaks well to these insider type corporate deals which is why the corporate owned media is trying so hard to smear him and get him out of the race so we get another dog and pony show with two corporate shills at the top of each ticket just like every election since Mondale and Reagan. Instead of details like this blog regarding Edwards agenda we hear about haircuts, his wife's health, the fact he has no right helping poor people because he is rich himself(????? which is unbelievable). One would hope Americans would not be stupid enough to buy in.