Iowa Caucuses: The Good Guys Are Winning on Trade

By Jonathan Tasini, Working Life. Posted December 29, 2007.

At the end of the day, when the madness of our election process is over, each of us is likely, no matter who we individually supported, to be disappointed. But, as I've pointed out since the 2006 elections, there is much to be optimistic about when it comes to the issue of trade---at least if a Democrat occupies the White House. If a Democrats wins the presidency, she or he will have, generally speaking, staked out a position on trade that begins to move us away from the disaster of Republican and Democratic trade policy over the past several decades. We can---and should---hold the winner accountable to what they have promised on the campaign trail. And that's the purpose of this post.

Thanks to the wonderful work of the Iowa Fair Trade Campaign, we can track the key trade-related statements of the Democratic candidates who are campaigning in Iowa. To give some context, I offer a few observations before going through the candidates' statements (the Iowa Fair Trade Campaign did not analyze statements by either Dennis Kucinich, who is quite good on trade issues, nor Mike Gravel because neither have active Iowa campaigns).

First, no candidate examined by the Iowa Fair Trade Campaign is, from my perspective, quite got the problem down pat. No one is willing to say, quite clearly, that there is no such thing as so-called "free trade." It's a myth, a slogan that is simply a marketing phrase---as is its counterpoint slogan "protectionism." With virtually every statement on trade, most candidates always feel the reflexive, defensive need to add to any critique of so-called "free trade" that "I am not a protectionist" and/or "I believe trade is good." The political elites---and I include the quivering traditional media which is trapped in the Economics 101 framework taught in colleges that extols so-called "free trade"---have trapped any decent candidate into believing that if they don't caveat their critique of the current economic model, they will be written off, mocked and pilloried for being a raging populist.

Second, 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.

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. The central problem of so-called "free trade" is this--it has almost nothing to do with fair trading of goods and services between countries but about implementing other things that are secondary to fair trade.

The so-called "free trade" deal with Peru, like the other similar agreements, includes 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.

Third, and finally, generally speaking, I don't ascribe our potential good fortune on trade to the inherent good intentions of the candidates. To state the obvious, politicians care mostly about getting elected---and running on a platform embracing a failed economic model is not a great formula for success. I think Democratic candidates have been responding to Iowa voters' priorities by saying more about trade than ever before in recent memory. They generally have been apologizing for the effects of NAFTA (yes, a little late, perhaps), some saying they'll renegotiate it, fix it or even scrap it.

See more stories tagged with: primaries, election08, democrats, iowa caucuses, nafta, trade

Jonathan Tasini is Executive Director of the Labor Research Center.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »