Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Election 2008

Toward a New Washington Consensus on Trade

By David Sirota, Creators Syndicate. Posted May 16, 2008.


When will U.S. politicians recognize that NAFTA is bad for everyone?
Advertisement

You've probably heard that John McCain once said, "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues." This line is regularly referenced by Democratic television pundits as evidence that McCain is unprepared to lead the country during a recession.

The criticism is certainly valid, but it ignores something more troubling. It's not that politicians like McCain "need to be educated" about economics, as he admitted. It's that they do not comprehend how economics impacts international affairs.

Behold McCain at a recent town meeting.

"We need our Canadian friends, and we need their continued support in Afghanistan," he said. "So what do we do? The two Democratic candidates for president say they're going to unilaterally abrogate NAFTA. How do you think the Canadian people are going to react to that?"

Opinion-makers, think-tankers and other assorted conventional wisdom spewers depict McCain's thesis as unquestioned truth. They claim that though most Americans oppose our trade policies, the world's masses love them, and if we change them, we will lose allies.

This rationale justifies the fabled Washington Consensus -- the set of right-wing globalization measures currently destabilizing the world economy. And because our politicians' international curiosity begins and ends with turning French Fries into Freedom Fries, this rationale goes unchallenged in America's political debate.

Facts, however, are persistent things -- facts like the Toronto Star report showing "almost half of all Canadians [believe] NAFTA should be renegotiated," with 80 percent saying it has done little or nothing for workers. McCain wonders how Canadians will react to NAFTA criticism, but the results are already in: According to polls, they prefer the NAFTA-bashing Barack Obama by a five-to-one margin over the NAFTA-glorifying Arizona senator.

"Canadians believe NAFTA needs serious work," said Jack Layton, leader of Canada's New Democratic Party. The likely prime minister candidate told me he wants to reform the pact because it helps corporations overturn laws and because its lack of standards forces workers into a wage-cutting, environment-destroying race to the bottom.

"NAFTA has become the template for other trade negotiations," Layton said. President Bush says that's terrific -- that, for instance, rewarding Colombia's brutal government with a NAFTA-style pact will quell anti-Americanism from Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. But Layton said these deals are "the real problem" for America around the world -- and he has more pesky facts to support the assertion.

The Los Angeles Times reports that polls show animosity toward U.S. globalization policies is growing throughout Latin America. Mexicans now oppose NAFTA by a 2-to-1 gap -- predictable considering their country's plight. In the 14 years preceding NAFTA, Mexico was among Latin America's fastest growing economies. In the 14 years since, it is among the slowest.

When I spoke with Costa Rican economist Otton Solis, he told me, "Many Latin Americans see these trade agreements as an imposition." He pointed to accords helping agribusiness crush local farmers and pharmaceutical companies inflate medicine prices as typical examples of America foisting corporate-written edicts on poorer countries.

Solis narrowly lost his 2006 bid for Costa Rica's presidency, and he plans to run again on anti-Washington Consensus themes. He noted that just like in the United States, the public in South America is not clamoring for lobbyist-written trade deals -- "only the elites are." Far from a diplomatic panacea, Solis said these policies help anti-American rulers like Chavez, who cite them as proof of imperialism.

Now there is the possibility of change. Come November, if Americans elect leaders who are serious about reforming trade policies -- a big if -- then we may get a government that understands the relationship between economics and foreign policy. We could see a new Washington Consensus: one that actually reflects public consensus at home and abroad.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: washington, mccain, economy, foreign policy, nafta

David Sirota is the bestselling author of Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government -- and How We Can Take It Back" (Crown, 2006). He is a senior fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network -- both nonpartisan research organizations. His daily blog can be found at www.credoaction.com/sirota. To find out more about David Sirota and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

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


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Free Trade benefits only a few.
Posted by: yellow on May 17, 2008 2:18 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of the $500 billion to $1 trillion increase in income from free trade and investment liberalization in the US most accrued to the very richest Americans and corporations as the real national median income has steadily declined over the same period. Economist Alan Blinder has estimated that about 40 million service jobs in the US face outsourcing competition in places like India and other low wage countries accounting for close to 30% of all US jobs.

Still, tariffs are the wrong approach. At this point most of the jobs that have gone overseas, most of which are final stage assembly jobs in manufacturing, won't return to the US job market. It is impossible to reverse globalization. The only truely viable approach is to steer the US economy in a direction that redistributes income, creates full employment, funds needed services like universal health care and creates energy efficiency and environmental protection with fossil fuel reducing alternatives and investment in urban mass transit. Tariffs will only create inflation if they spur investment in domestic consumer goods production at all. There is already trillions of dollars worth of manufacturing output produced in the US annually. This cannot resolve the problem of economic stagnation and unemployment. This is because the US manufacturing sector is highly capital intensive using only a fraction of the labor it once used. Only 10% of the US labor force is employed in manufacturing down from a peak in the mid-1950s of one-third. In addition, real US manufacturing wages, though above the average, are not growing very fast. The solution is create a new, definancialized US economy. Only this approach will mitigate the negative effects of globalization.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Free trade benefits those who have marketable goods and/or skills.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 18, 2008 10:42 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, it does not benefit everyone.

Gads. Imagine not appeasing every last person in your personal, ego-driven, imaginative view of how you would like your subjects to behave.

The nerve of some people with frontal lobe activity!

Bastards and anti-statists! All of them.

Point us to some torches and piles of books. They should not be allowed to get away with such antiestablishmentariansim. ;)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]