Say Anything Blog

Obama’s opposition to NAFTA seems natural enough given the left’s trend toward economic isolationism and protectionism to please its union masters, but Hillary’s attempt to demagogue the trade agreement comes off as tortured given that the passage of it was one of her husband’s defining accomplishments (or surrenders to the Republican congress, depending on how you look at it) as President.

“I was not in the Senate at the time. I did not have a vote. I find his argument to be quite tortured. I have been a vocal critic of NAFTA starting in my campaign for the Senate in 1999.”

But wasn’t Hillary a part of her husband’s administration?  You know, the administration that signed NAFTA into law?  When it’s convenient for her, I guess Hillary would just like us to pretend that her political career started with her 1999 Senate campaign.

What’s irksome, though, is the level of economic illiteracy displayed by both candidates as the demagogue the NAFTA issue.  As the Washington Post notes:

...there are moments like last Wednesday, when Mr. Obama struck some unusually sour notes in what was billed as a major economic policy address. Yes, there were the trademark invocations of “shared sacrifice and shared prosperity.” But Mr. Obama’s remarks were also tinged with an angrier, and intellectually sloppier, message. We thought we’d heard the last of class warfare and populism when former North Carolina senator John Edwards finally bowed out of the race. In his speech, Mr. Obama quoted Mr. Edwards approvingly; he then echoed him in implying that he could pay for new domestic programs with an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and in exaggerating the “millions” of job losses attributable to trade agreements. Mr. Obama even seemed to draw a line connecting the current subprime mortgage crunch to “decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China.”

These simplifications might help Mr. Obama beat out Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for the dubious prize of an Edwards endorsement. They might play well in Ohio, where foreclosures are rampant, some plants have shut because of international competition—and the Democrats hold a crucial primary on March 4. But they are not worthy of a candidate whose past speeches and writings demonstrate that he understands the benefits of free trade. “I won’t stand here and tell you that we can—or should—stop free trade,” Mr. Obama declared, candidly, then quickly promised that “I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers.” It’s not clear what he means by this. Mr. Obama supported the Peru Free Trade Agreement, which contained such protections, but he opposes the proposed pact with Colombia, which has labor and environmental provisions similar to those in the Peru deal. To account for the seeming contradiction, Mr. Obama echoes organized labor’s exaggerated complaints about human rights violations in Colombia. He doesn’t support the Korea Free Trade Agreement, which promises the greatest benefits of all the pending trade deals to the U.S. economy—but is fiercely opposed by a narrow slice of the auto industry and the auto workers union.

As Congress struggles to “stimulate” the economy, having two major candidates for President both railing against free trade international trade - which is one of the healthiest things for our economy - is just plain depressing.