Democratic Golden Opportunity: Republican Voters Oppose "Free Trade"
Let me talk first about the poll and, then, say something about the opportunity. Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal described a Journal-NBC News poll that found that by a 2-1 margin Republican voters think foreign trade has been bad for the U.S. economy. By contrast, a similar question asked in 1999 found that 37% of Republicans said trade deals were good for the U.S., while 31% said such deals were a bad thing and 26 percent said trade deals made no difference.
Now, obviously, we need to be a bit cautious about one poll (and, as an amusing aside, 53 percent of the respondents had thankfully never heard of Moveon.org and almost the same number said they believe the Bible is to be taken literally). But, the poll, in my opinion, coincides what is clearly a perception among regular people that trade has mostly benefited the elites and corporations, and not average Americans (not to mention workers around the world).
Here are the two statements asked of the voters:
Statement A: Foreign trade has been good for the U.S. economy, because demand for U.S. products abroad has resulted in economic growth and jobs for Americans here at home and provided more choices for consumers.
Statement B: Foreign trade has been bad for the U.S. economy, because imports from abroad have reduced demand for American-made goods, cost jobs here at home, and produced potentially unsafe products.
I want to note first that there is a huge ideological bias in the Journal’s story. The Journal’s story uses the marketing phrase "free trade", claiming that "Six in 10 Republicans in the poll agreed with a statement that free trade has been bad for the U.S. and said they would agree with a Republican candidate who favored tougher regulations to limit foreign imports." Actually, the poll question simply refers to "foreign trade." It is the Journal that injects the phrase "free trade."
While you may think this is a minor issue, the rhetoric of "free trade" has been, certainly for Democrats, a phony marketing phrase that has attained a power analogous to "patriotism": you can’t be against "free trade" because that makes you backward and "protectionist." I have made this point repeatedly: there is no such thing as "free trade." The trade deals being signed simply set up a regime of rules. It’s not about anything being "free."
Interestingly, this seems to have made no difference to the Republican voters who were polled. They seem to have seen through the damage so-called "free trade" has done. And, not surprisingly, two-thirds of the respondents who declared their income levels said they made $75,000 or less—-the very people who would likely have seen their livelihoods effected by bad trade deals.
Apparently, Republicans are willing to keep embracing bad trade deals:
The leading Republican candidates are still trying to promote free trade. "Our philosophy has to be not how many protectionist measures can we put in place, but how do we invent new things to sell" abroad, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said in a recent interview. "That's the view of the future. What [protectionists] are trying to do is lock in the inadequacies of the past."
To Rudy, I say: keep on talking that line. And one who is going against that grain is doing much better than the conventional wisdom:
One fresh indication of the party's ideological crosswinds: Presidential candidate Ron Paul of Texas, who opposes the Iraq war and calls free-trade deals "a threat to our independence as a nation," announced yesterday that he raised $5 million in third-quarter donations. That nearly matches what one-time front-runner John McCain is expected to report.
So, what does that offer Democrats? As I pointed out recently, we have the best environment on beating back so-called "free trade" that we’ve had in a long time; key Democrats, including Sen. Hillary Clinton, are opposed to the South Korea so-called "free trade" deal. But, some Democrats still can’t be trusted on trade. And at the AFL-CIO presidential debate in August, the Democratic presidential field generally failed to take on the major failed underpinnings of so-called "free trade."
Which makes you want to scream (well, okay, maybe only I feel that urge). There is a deep, deep distrust of these elite-driven trade deals. It cuts across party lines. It is the result not of ignorance or fear, as some of the pundits would like you to believe, but of a great understanding, based on real experience, about what so-called "free trade" has done to the country.
In that understanding lies a huge opportunity to capture millions of voters who do not vote Democratic—and probably don’t vote at all. What the people want to hear is a candidate who stands up and is not afraid to say: "free trade" and the "free market" are lies. They don’t exist. They are public relations phrases. As president, when I think of what I want to do on economic policy, for our people and people around the world, I will have one question that I want answered—how do the rules that we will set up help most of the people, not the elites, live a life of dignity and economic security?
John Edwards has come closest to this position. But, even he, still is unwilling to be very explicit about the false belief in the phrases "free market" and "free trade."
Will a candidate, and the party, seize the opportunity?
Comments
Protectionsim?
An opportunity
I agree that this is an opportunity. But the way to seize it is not to try to find the least bad among the "electable" Democrats. We have to back the Democrat who has already taken a stand. Congressman Dennis Kucinich has stated clearly and unequivocally that "free trade" is bad for American and foreigh workers. It benefits only the large corporations at the expense of everyone else. He has pledged to repeal NAFTA and withdraw from the WTO.
If you want to force the Democratic leadership to give up the myth of "free trade" , the only way to do it is to demonstrate to them that a candidate from their party who takes that stand will get a lot of votes. If Congressman Kucinich were to poll 20% in New Hampshire, would that not do more to bring the party toward the correct positions on trade than getting behind a candidate with positions on trade that are fuzzy at best.
An opportunity but who has "the creds" to exploit it?
Allow me to express a bit of frustration.
In 2003 - 2004, I was on the phones and on the internet urging Democratic presidential candidates to repudiate "Free Trade" and offshore outsourcing and the "guest worker" (H-1b, L-1) visa programs to used to facilitate offshore outsourcing. The campaign managers and advisors kept activists like me at arms length. They wanted us to attack Republicans and deliver support (money and votes) while their candidates reassured business lobbies (as far away as India and China) that any positions they took were just posturing for the angry ill-informed workers.
Hell, when John Kerry had a chance to deal with offshore outsourcing issue in a national debate, he quickly stated that he would not "pander" to people who were opposed to free trade. (This went over real well with workers who were looking for something more than a slick facile slogan like "outsource Bush"; it may have cost Kerry the election.)
In short, Democratic Party presidential candidate Kerry tried to use the Offshore outsourcing/free trade issue in '04 but found that such positions upset his richy-rich business contributors so he backed off his "Benedict Arnold" rhetoric and tried to have it both ways. I noticed it, people on my email lists noticed, blog posters noticed it and even the business press in the U.S. and offshore noticed it. People do catch on...
And, where is John Edwards the sometime critic of NAFTA and "free trade" today? He's talking about "Two Americas" but nary a word about offshore outsourcing of American middle class jobs. Oh yea, he did have time to visit rich high tech CEOs in the Silicon Valley to explain how he supports their "need" for more imported "replacement workers", I mean, "guest workers" because there's such a skills shortage what with all the American IT workers who have been fired by the thousands. (Nah, Edwards didn't say that last part; I was just being sarcastic.
Sadly, Obama, is also courting the richy-rich business groups who are benefitting from offshore outsourcing American jobs and importing lower-wage "guest workers". Yea, his campaign was stupid, rude and irresponsible in the Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab) comments but it's unfortunate that Obama felt compelled to drop the whole issue of Hillary and Bill's ties to the elites benefiting from American job losses.
So, just because sometime Republican voters are disenchanted with free trade and offshore outsourcing, Democratic candidates have to be able to offer some credible alternative. They failed to deliver this in '04 and, at this point, they're not doing any better in '07. In fact, they're doing worse: they haven't even opened the subject.
Unfortunately, real democrats like Bernie (technically an "I") Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Jim Webb and Byron Dorgan are not among the presidential primary contenders. If they were, we'd have some people who could effectively and credibly debate the offshore outsourcing and worker replacement issues.
As it is, Hillary Clinton's alleged differences with her husband on trade and labor issues (played up and exaggerated in the WSJ) are unbelievable -- IMO mere positioning to win over labor and Democrats. Hillary is as "DLC" and tainted with pro-outsourcing lobby money as they come. She's even carved out a special niche supporting the expansion of the worker replacement visas...
If any of this intrigues readers, my blog site has plenty of links and opinions about "free trade" and worker replacement programs. http://modernpatriot.blogspot.com
An opportunity but who has "the creds" to exploit it?
Allow me to express a bit of frustration.
In 2003 - 2004, I was on the phones and on the internet urging Democratic presidential candidates to repudiate "Free Trade" and offshore outsourcing and the "guest worker" (H-1b, L-1) visa programs to used to facilitate offshore outsourcing. The campaign managers and advisors kept activists like me at arms length. They wanted us to attack Republicans and deliver support (money and votes) while their candidates reassured business lobbies (as far away as India and China) that any positions they took were just posturing for the angry ill-informed workers.
Hell, when John Kerry had a chance to deal with offshore outsourcing issue in a national debate, he quickly stated that he would not "pander" to people who were opposed to free trade. (This went over real well with workers who were looking for something more than a slick facile slogan like "outsource Bush"; it may have cost Kerry the election.)
In short, Democratic Party presidential candidate Kerry tried to use the Offshore outsourcing/free trade issue in '04 but found that such positions upset his richy-rich business contributors so he backed off his "Benedict Arnold" rhetoric and tried to have it both ways. I noticed it, people on my email lists noticed, blog posters noticed it and even the business press in the U.S. and offshore noticed it. People do catch on...
And, where is John Edwards the sometime critic of NAFTA and "free trade" today? He's talking about "Two Americas" but nary a word about offshore outsourcing of American middle class jobs. Oh yea, he did have time to visit rich high tech CEOs in the Silicon Valley to explain how he supports their "need" for more imported "replacement workers", I mean, "guest workers" because there's such a skills shortage what with all the American IT workers who have been fired by the thousands. (Nah, Edwards didn't say that last part; I was just being sarcastic.
Sadly, Obama, is also courting the richy-rich business groups who are benefitting from offshore outsourcing American jobs and importing lower-wage "guest workers". Yea, his campaign was stupid, rude and irresponsible in the Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab) comments but it's unfortunate that Obama felt compelled to drop the whole issue of Hillary and Bill's ties to the elites benefiting from American job losses.
So, just because sometime Republican voters are disenchanted with free trade and offshore outsourcing, Democratic candidates have to be able to offer some credible alternative. They failed to deliver this in '04 and, at this point, they're not doing any better in '07. In fact, they're doing worse: they haven't even opened the subject.
Unfortunately, real democrats like Bernie (technically an "I") Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Jim Webb and Byron Dorgan are not among the presidential primary contenders. If they were, we'd have some people who could effectively and credibly debate the offshore outsourcing and worker replacement issues.
As it is, Hillary Clinton's alleged differences with her husband on trade and labor issues (played up and exaggerated in the WSJ) are unbelievable -- IMO mere positioning to win over labor and Democrats. Hillary is as "DLC" and tainted with pro-outsourcing lobby money as they come. She's even carved out a special niche supporting the expansion of the worker replacement visas...
If any of this intrigues readers, my blog site has plenty of links and opinions about "free trade" and worker replacement programs. http://modernpatriot.blogspot.com