Demand for New Globalization Model Goes Mainstream as Fair-Trade Election Pick-Ups Move Congress' Views Closer to Public's

Co-authored by Todd Tucker

The 2008 election delivered a major shift in the U.S. political landscape away from the disastrous trade and globalization policies of the past. From the presidential race to both chambers of Congress from the traditionally 'free trade' Pacific Northwest to Florida to Colorado to New York to New Mexico, successful candidates in 2008 election races ran on a platform of fundamental overhaul of U.S. trade and globalization policies.

At least 31 vocal fair-traders captured seats previously held by supporters of the NAFTA-CAFTA-WTO status quo. Once the final results are in on the still uncalled races, that number may rise. This builds on the transformation begun in 2006, when 37 fair-traders replaced senators and representatives who had systematically supported race-to-the-bottom globalization policies.

That the demand for a new approach to trade and globalization has hit a tipping point is demonstrated by the unprecedented 140-plus TV ads on trade used in this cycle, including a dozen by President-elect Barack Obama run mainly during the general election. This compares to roughly 25 ads in congressional races in 2006, when criticism of status-quo globalization and trade policy showed an exponential jump from all past election cycles.

Public Citizen's new report, Fair Trade Gets an Upgrade, lists the trade positions for all candidates in over 130 competitive or open-seat races, with an accompanying website displaying the TV ads calling for trade reform. This includes Democrat Jeff Merkley in Oregon who shattered the conventional political wisdom by running and winning as a fair trader in the Pacific Northwest. The failure of the current trade and globalization policies was a top focus of his campaign which ran seven paid trade ads to defeat 100% anti-fair trader GOP incumbent Gordon Smith. Democrat Kay Hagan also used seven different trade-focused ads in North Carolina to beat GOP incumbent Sen. Elizabeth Dole. And, the details of the defeat of the two representatives who provided the two final votes to pass CAFTA -- Reps. Phil English (R-Pa.) (a senior House Ways and Means Committee member) and Robin Hayes (R-N.C.) in campaigns focused on their trade betrayals -- will warm the hearts of veterans of past trade battles.

Our research found numerous indicators of how far trade politics have shifted. Campaigning on fair trade is no longer just a Democratic tactic. Eighteen Republicans beat back tough primary and general election challenges by campaigning on a fair-trade platform, including with paid ads. In a dozen races, both the Republican and the Democrat competed in an "anti-NAFTA off," battling to be the most critical of the status-quo trade model. The Democratic Congressional and Senatorial Campaign Committees ran 29 ads on the issue in support of candidates in 17 states. The trade issue proved to be so powerful that we found the DCCC running attack ads against Republicans in races where the Democrat had an anti-fair trade voting record!

Public Citizen's report also reviews the extended national "anti-NAFTA-off" that consumed the Democratic presidential primaries, with Obama and Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-N.Y.) competing to be most critical of the pact pushed by Bill Clinton. Presidential primary candidates provided written commitments on an array of trade and globalization reform issues that have never been part of past presidential race. Obama's primary campaign trade-reform commitments became part of the Democratic platform, which also presented a trade-reform agenda not seen in the past. For example, the platform states that no future bilateral trade pacts "will stop the government from protecting the environment, food safety, or the health of its citizens; give greater rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors; require the privatization of our vital public services; or prevent developing country governments from adopting humanitarian licensing policies to improve access to life-saving medications."

This political shift follows on where the American public has been moving for years. Nearly three-quarters of Americans believe that a "free trade agreement" has had a negative effect on their families. Majorities oppose NAFTA across every demographic with Catholic, swing, independent and Hispanics voters among the most anti-NAFTA blocs. GOP voters, by a two-to-one majority, agree that "[f]oreign trade has been bad for the U.S. economy, because imports from abroad have reduced demand for American-made goods, cost jobs here at home, and produced potentially unsafe products."

The challenge facing the newly elected and the re-elected is to translate electoral messaging into real change. Success on middle-class economic-security, health care, and climate-reform agendas will require significant changes to the status-quo model of globalization and the "trade" agreements now implementing it. This is the case because pacts like WTO require signatory countries to conform their domestic policies to a wide array of non-trade rules - from radical financial service deregulation to limits on health-care insurance and green-jobs procurement policies. Plus, the public has had it with the current race-to-the-bottom trade model. Americans voted against those who support it and for those who say they will replace it.

Public expectations after this trade-focused election create pressure to fix the existing trade agreements and policies while further marginalizing various Bush hangover proposals, such as an expansion of the NAFTA to Colombia, a bilateral investment treaty with China, and more financial service liberalization through the Korea Free Trade Agreement and the ongoing WTO Doha Round.

The salience of trade reform in the U.S. election parallels growing demand worldwide for reform of the current international economic architecture comprised by institutions such as the WTO. With global financial, food-price and climate crises dominating the news and bringing the downsides of this globalization model into everyone's homes, U.S. candidates calling for new approaches found a ready audience, and now they must deliver.

You can read the full report (PDF) and check out the trade TV ads. To see an appendix of detailed candidate positions on trade in all tracked races, click here (PDF). Finally, you can review President-elect Obama's trade commitments here (PDF).

Comments

[zaz33]

We've all seen the results of neo-liberal economics - globalization - free trade - wto - ect.

A disasterous transfer of wealth and an the abandonment of the poor. The list goes on.

Latin Americans didn't have "just enought" middle class, so they were the first to recognize the exploitation by the neo-liberal model.

We can't assume that the battle is won and the super rich will surrender.

PUSH PUSH PUSH

[Kassandra]

I'm willing to pay more if it means we will stop hemorrhaging jobs and get our manufacturing sector back.
the full extent of the Friedmanites attacks on the global economies of dozens of nations ( including our own) and setting up puppet dictatorships to run them into has not yet penetrated the American psyche. Possibly, it may never do so.
Bush's extreme neo-con ideology has placed America at far greater danger from all sources within and without than anything else ever could have.

I always wanted to get into political cartooning and one of the images that keeps recurring is Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice poking at a world in the shape of a buzzing beehive. You know what happens when you do that.

I just hope that Emmanuel can be moved from his extremist position when he helped Bush in that "Secret Trade Deal" last year to get 5 more deals through before the fast track authority ran out. I remain confident that people CAN and Do change...but he makes me nervous.

[Indubio]

This is a dangerous issue and an important one. Recall that Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act passed in 1930 precipitated the Great Depression by decreasing demand for US goods and both American exports and imports plunged sharply after the act was passed. I think American trade policy has been an unmitigated disaster for this nation but altering the status quo should be done with a great deal of care.

[dadw5boys]

I agree. But Americans have never dealt with true fair trade.

The American people will not like the higher prices of fair trade.

Fair trade means paying fair market values for the natural resources American Companys take from other countrys.

But fair trade also means companys taking natural resources from public lands will pay a higher price for the access to and use of American Nastural Resources.

[therealredstateblues]

They will if they understand that "saving" a few pennies at walmart will ultimatyely cost them, or their neighbors or a relative their jobs and std of living

[therealredstateblues]

This is one of the big myths that the free traders love to roll out to defend their failed ideology. The fact is that the great depression was well under way BEFORE Smoot Hawley was passed - the depression was PRECIPITATED by rampant speculation, too cheap and easy credit, too much leverage, lasseiz faire policies and lax regulation leading to the stock market crash - this is and has been the generally accepted cause by economists and historians - to suggest otherwise is revisionist.

The govt's own statistics show Smoot Hawley had virtually no effect either postive or negative on the length or depth or the depression - it has been made a convenient scapegoat by those with a free trade agenda.

the times were differnt then as well, currently we have record, growing and unsustainable trade deficits, and a dangerous deindustrialization going on - the very engine of prosperity sharing, innovation creation, and wealth creation, not to mention our national security material building base.

[therealredstateblues]

The problem is so far Obama's appointees and proposed appointtees like Summers and Emannuel, and his economic advisers like Rubin, Goolsbee and Furman (who wrote a glowing paper on the benefits of Walmart) are all free traders

[dadw5boys]

Fair trade is not Corporate Cronyism of the Bush so called fair trade.

[therealredstateblues]

The people I named are all free market free traders, not fair traders - look them up

[squeakyf]

I was born and raised by a father that works in the auto industry. My husband was also raised by a father that worked for the auto industry. This being the case, both of our families have been greatly affected by all of the "free trade" agreements. I noticed early that these trade agreements were not "free" at all!! Bush Sr. started the WTO. Clinton sadly passed the NAFTA agreement and W., well we all know what W has done. Realizing that hindsight is 20/20, I still refuse to give a "free pass" to any elected official that continues to support this WTO way of doing business. We all have seen the outcome and we as a nation are losing good paying middle class jobs in mass. We as US citizens all have a vested interest in keeping an eye on our elected officials and promises made to get the votes.

[therealredstateblues]

"free" trade has been absolutely devastating to the industrial midwest

[Seldon]

Ford, GM and Chrysler are failing cause they make BAD CARS. Free Trade allows the American consumers to get the cars they want at affordable prices. If it were prohibitively expensive to get a Toyota Prius or a European car then everyone in America would be driving around in vehicles delivering 9 mpg, and the oil shock would hit that much harder. If free trade means a local company goes under, it is because they cannot deliver a good enough product for a cheap enough price. There are problems with NAFTA, but I think the Canadians have more reasons to complain. Don't blame a free trade agreement when CEO's fail to run a business.

[therealredstateblues]

Yes Detroit has made some bad decisions, but their car quality has been steadily improving since the 80's

Detroit made cars that people wanted to buy - SUV's and pickups, can't blame them for doing what the market wanted.

Toyota has not been immune, they just reported their sales down 48% worst quarter in 3 decades. Their product mix has been relying on bigger heavier casrs, trucks and SUVs as well. I read in a car magazine recently comparing the old Corolla to the new one - the new one is longer taller and wider and weigh almost 1000 pounds more and does not get better gas mileage either.

Where bad trade deals comes in is that much of the tier supply base has been offshored - these are the parts producers that also provide 2 out of 4 automotive related mfg jobs.

[BuckeyeGal]

Oh please.
The Yen is worth $.01. And it has been manipulated for decades, so the 'value' of Japanese cars is artificially low.
They won't buy our cars either, and not because they are "bad," but because there is a high tariff imposed by the Japanese government.
So just stop with the "free" trade garbage.

[Javani]

Best news I have read in a while. Thank you.