NAFTA Politics Amongst Democratic Pres. Candidates

[Pangloss]

Clinton and Obama have been beating each other up over this for a couple of weeks now, and I can't make head or tails of it. It seems like both sides are stretching the truth a bit thin, and the Anendberg FactCheck seems to agree.

 

FactChecking Obama:

 

Obama is quoted as saying that "one million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio." But those figures are highly questionable and from an anti-NAFTA source. Other economic studies have concluded the trade deal resulted in much smaller job losses or even a small net gain.

 

The mailer quotes Hillary Clinton as saying "NAFTA has been good for New York and America." That quote, however, is taken out of context. She also said in that same news conference that NAFTA was flawed and old trade deals needed to be revisited.

 

FactChecking Clinton:

 

Clinton’s spokesman says a newly surfaced memo proves that Obama's campaign issued false denials about sending a private message to Canadian officials to disregard his criticisms of NAFTA. The Obama camp says it’s all a misunderstanding, and the Canadian embassy in Washington says it regrets the whole thing.

 

It's now clear that a Canadian news report that started this flap wasn't accurate. No evidence has surfaced to show that any Obama "staffer" telephoned the Canadian ambassador in Washington, and all concerned deny that any such conversation took place. But it is equally clear that Obama's senior economic adviser did visit Canada's consulate in Chicago on Feb. 8, and that NAFTA was one of the several topics discussed.

 

But regarding the first point, while Obama may be exaggerating some of the specifics of Clinton's message, isn't it fair for him to point out that the Clinton administration was responsible for NAFTA? If he feels NAFTA is wrong, and she's claiming those eight years as part of her experience set, then that makes it a valid point of criticism, does it not?

 

On the other hand, what does this say about Obama's position on free trade? He seems to be walking a fine line here, saying we need free trade but that NAFTA was a bad thing. I agree that there are some specifics that could be fine tuned, but free trade is free trade, isn't he really just sending union voters a misleading hint that he will favor protectionism? I don't know about you guys but I think some STRAIGHT answers on that issue would be really nice to have. Appeasing groups on false grounds isn't "change", it's "more of the same".

 

But as I say I'm no happier with Clinton's position on that as well. What do you all think?

[ecoli]

Here's an interesting thought... aren't policies such as NAFTA and CAFTA, which essentially set up various nations as trading partners, really managed trade and not free trade at all?

 

There are positives and negatives about them, but I don't feel comfortable with politicians calling them "free trade" agreements. Especially for republicans like McCain who are supposedly champions of the free market.

 

As far as I can tell, the Democratic candidates only want to renegotiate these trade agreements in order to implement climate policy. So they're not really for free trade either.

 

I'm not sure about the details of all these policies so I may be off the mark here, but I do know that government has a tendency for push for one agenda and call it something else in order to appeal to the public.

 

So when we talk about issues like NAFTA and CAFTA, is it really right for someone against these policies to be labelled as 'against free trade'?

[Pangloss]

From an extreme position even WTO redress of violations is considered management of trade, so you have to be careful in defining the subject.

 

The position of the Democratic candidates clearly transcends climate policy. If that were all there was to it then it certainly wouldn't play in Ohio, where voters are upset about the perception of lost jobs, not global warming.

 

But I haven't accused Obama or Clinton of being against free trade, I'm asking if there's more to their statements than meets the eye, which I think is a reasonable question given the situation.

[ecoli]

I know... I heard some radio personality call him that. I personally don't think he'll change a thing, except to cause these 'free trade' bills to become even more managed.

 

I think the perception of lost jobs will be useful in defeating McCain, but nothing will be done, or even can be, done about it. Business as usual in Washington.

 

The global economy is shifting and a lot of jobs are moving overseas... there's not much we can or should do about it. How many mothers want their kids to grow up to work in a factory?

On the downside, service and intellectual jobs are going to get a lot more competitive here. It's going to get even more difficult to get into Medical school, that means.

[Pangloss]

Yes, I'd agree with that, especially after reading this article in today's Slate:

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2185739/

 

Clinton tried to make a meal over a report that Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago professor and an occasional Slate contributor, told Canadians that Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric was just for show and that they should trust in Obama's free-trade credentials.

 

Mexico and Canada aren't really Ohio's main problems. The last time I visited the state, I went to a steel plant outside Cleveland where one of the furnaces was being dismantled and sent to … China. The state, which has lost large numbers of manufacturing jobs, is currently experiencing the negative aftereffects of an economic boom (high unemployment and foreclosure rates), even though it never felt many of the boom's benefits. So what accounts for the state's visceral hostility to NAFTA? The Wall Street Journal yesterday published a poll showing that Democrats in Ohio disapprove of NAFTA by a 59-13 margin. (In Texas, only 40 percent of Democrats disapprove while 33 percent approve.) As my Newsweek colleague Keith Naughton notes, Mexico holds a special symbolic status for employees of automakers and similar smokestack industries, which used to be large presences in Ohio and which moved big chunks of their production south of the border in the 1980s and '90s.

 

Yay, politics as usual. Oh I'm sorry, I mean "change! big sweeping humongous change!"