Time to Make Free Trade an Issue

Fareed Zakaria has an interesting article about the Democrats' position on free trade today. The Democrats are running a dichotomy on geopolitics and foreign policy that is both illogical and untennable, and it offers the Republicans an opportunity in the general election. The Democrats have in unison decried the foreign policy of George Bush and the Republicans and have promised a new tomorrow in which we will reach out to the rest of the world. On the other hand, they are practicing protectionist foreign policy threatening to renegotiate our free trade agreements.

That is not a tennable position. The rest of the world counts on the U.S. first and foremost for free trade. You cannot both run a campaign of an inclusive foreign policy and also try and practice protectionist free trade policies. The Democrats would have us believe that they can simultaneously draw the world in and practice protectionist trade policy. That is simply nothing short of a lie. It won't happen. If the Democrats actually practice protectionist foreign policy, they will isolate this nation on all foreign policy matters. If the rest of the world can't count on the U.S. for free trade, they aren't going to be receptive to the U.S. on any other foreign policy matter. Here is how one unnamed diplomat put it...

Look, we're all watching Obama with bated breath and hoping [his election] will be a transforming moment for the world. But now that we're listening to him on trade—the issue that affects us so deeply—we realize that maybe he doesn't wish us well. In fact, we might find ourselves nostalgic for Bush, who is brave and courageous on trade and immigration."

The Republicans have an opportunity to both paint free trade as effective economic policy and effective foreign policy and separate themselves from the Democrats.


For the life of me, I cannot understand why Republicans have stood idly by while one Democrat after another has slammed free trade agreements while kow towing to labor unions and not hit back.I learned the benefits of free trade in my second or third week of Economics 101. The logic is simple. Every country has resources of which they are plentiful (Brazil is stocked with sugar for instance), and other resources of which they are deficient. Free trade allows each nation to export its plentiful resource and import those resources that are in short supply. This seems so easy and basic that I was actually shocked when I first found politicians attacking free trade agreements like NAFTA.Yet, each Democratic Presidential candidate has come out against not only NAFTA, but CAFTA and the WTO itself. They have tried to mask their obvious pandering to the labor unions by coming up with nebulus terms like, fair trade, which frankly is some utopia that they create so that no free trade agreement can ever be passed.Here is a sample from each of them...John Edwards

"Trade has become a bad word for working Americans for a simple reason: ourtrade
policy has been bad for working Americans. We need new trade policies thatput
workers, wages and families first."

Hillary Clinton
"

Well, outsourcing is a problem, and it's one that I've dealt with as a senatorfrom New York. I started an organization called New Jobs for New York to try tostand against the tide of outsourcing, particularly from upstate New York and from rural areas. We have to do several things: end the tax breaks that stillexist in the tax code for outsourcing jobs, have trade agreements withenforceable labor and environmental standards, help Americans compete, which issomething we haven't taken seriously. 65% of kids do not go on to college. Whatare we doing to help them get prepared for the jobs that we could keep here thatwouldn't be outsourced--and find a new source
of jobs, clean energy, globalwarming, would create millions of new jobs for Americans."

Barack Obama

" I moved to Chicago to work with churches that were dealing with the devastation of steel plants that had closed all throughout the region. Tens ofthousands of people had been laid off. There was never a federal effort to comein after those closings and to figure out how can we retrain workers for thejobs of the future, how can we invest and make sure capital is available tocreate new businesses in those communities. And so not only do we have to deal with our trade agreements, not only do we have to eliminate tax breaks forcompanies that are moving overseas, not only do we have to work on our educationsystem, but we also have to have an intentional strategy on the part of thefederal government to make sure that we are reinvesting in those communitiesthat are being burdened by globalization and not benefiting from it"

The Democrats in Congress have already been able to block several free trade agreements with Colombia and with South Korea, and of course, they are jumping over each other to propose new ways of restricting NAFTA, CAFTA and every other free trade agreement we currently have. So far, they have been relatively unscathed and have been able to pander for votes. This must stop. Free trade is simple, sound, and logical economic policy. It benefits everyone and arguing against it means arguing against logical economic principles. Thus, in any debate on free trade, we win, since we have logic on our side.I was quite heartened to find this editorial in the San Diego Tribune, I hope I see more of this...

"If this is true, and Democrats take the White House next year while retaining control of Congress, fear for your country. Pundits' assertions thatSens. HillaryClinton and Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards won't reallyfollow through on their rhetoric ignores what congressional Democrats alreadyhave done on trade, blocking new pacts with Latin America and South Korea. It'splain that free-trade Democrats have been routed by those spouting union talkingpoints.So what if protectionism helped keep Europe stagnant for generations; sowhat if there is massive evidence that protecting jobs quickly becomes a drag onjob growth; so what if U.S. trade policy has helped make us a much richer nationthan ever. Democrats see votes to be won by lying about trade, and they're notgoing to let the facts get in their way.Their maligning of the NorthAmerican Free Trade Agreement is a perfect example. Its adoption in 1993 helpedkick off one of the great periods of sustained economic health in U.S. history.The resulting explosion in trade with Canada and Mexico was crucial to thecreation of more than 17 million new jobs, resulting in a five-year stretch inwhich the jobless rate was under 5 percent every year for only the second timesince World War II."

It isn't the job of the San Diego Tribune though to do the bidding of the Republican in a principle that I believe is the core of Conservatism, free trade. I think it is time that this becomes one of the front and center issues. The issue of free trade is nothing short of a huge winner for us Republicans, but it won't be if it isn't made an issue. I hope that as the campaign goes along Republican candidates make just as much of free trade as Democratic candidates have made of protectionism.