I keep my promises. I’ve just been given the language on trade that will likely be in the Democratic Party’s platform. Here it is, followed by some commentary (the numbers to the left of the language are from the draft pages…too lazy to take them out):

Smart, Strong, and Fair Trade Policies

20 We believe that trade should strengthen the American economy and create more

21 American jobs, while also laying a foundation for democratic, equitable, and sustainable

22 growth around the world. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global

23 development but we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few rather than

24 the many. We must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its

25 benefits more equitably.

26

27 Trade policy must be an integral part of an overall national economic strategy that

28 delivers on the promise of good jobs at home and shared prosperity abroad. We will

29 enforce trade laws and safeguard our workers, businesses and farmers from unfair trade

30 practices–including currency manipulation, lax consumer standards, illegal subsidies, and

31 violations of workers’ rights and environmental standards. We must also show leadership

32 at the World Trade Organization to improve transparency and accountability, and to

33 ensure it acts effectively to stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to

34 foreign exporters and non-tariff barriers on U.S. exports.

35

36 We need tougher negotiators on our side of the table–to strike bargains that are good not

37 just for Wall Street, but also for Main Street. We will negotiate free trade agreements that

38 open markets to U.S. exports and include enforceable international labor and

39 environmental standards; we pledge to enforce those standards consistently and fairly.

40 We will not negotiate free trade agreements that stop the government from protecting the

41 environment, food safety or the health of its citizens, give greater rights to foreign

42 investors than to U.S. investors, require the privatization of our vital public services, or

43 prevent developing country governments from adopting humanitarian licensing policies

44 to improve access to life-saving medications. We will stand firm against agreements that

45 fail to live up to these important benchmarks. We will work with Canada and Mexico to

46 amend the North American Free Trade Agreement so that it works better for all three

1 North American countries. We will work together with other countries to achieve a

2 successful completion of the Doha Round Agreement that would increase U.S. exports,

3 support good jobs in America, protect worker rights and the environment, benefit our

4 businesses and our farms, strengthen the rules-based multilateral system, and advance

5 development of the world’s poorest countries.

6

7 Just as important, we will invest in a world-class infrastructure, skilled workforce, and

8 cutting-edge technology so that we can compete successfully on high- value-added

9 products, not sweatshop wages and conditions. We will end tax breaks for companies that

10 ship American jobs overseas, and provide incentives for companies that keep and

11 maintain good jobs here in the U.S. And, we will also provide access to affordable health

12 insurance and enhance retirement security, and we will update and expand Trade

13 Adjustment Assistance to help workers in industries vulnerable to international

14 competition, as well as service sector and public sector workers impacted by trade, and

15 we will improve TAA’s health care benefits. The United States should renew its own

16 commitment to respect for workers’ fundamental human rights, and at the same time

17 strengthen the ILO’s ability to promote workers’ rights abroad through technical

18 assistance and capacity building.

   So, is this good or bad? Here are some initial, quick thoughts and please feel free to give your own:

   First, the good stuff. i liked making the connection between trade and an overall national economic strategy that "delivers on the promise of good jobs at home and shared prosperity abroad." This is important in making it clear that, when we go after bad trade deals, it’s with the thought in mind that this isn’t just bad for American workers but bad for workers elsewhere to.

   The declaration that new trade agreements won’t undercut strong standards on a whole host of things is a step forward. I think we should really underscore the "end tax breaks for companies that ship American jobs overseas".

   A lot of the tone of this, though, makes me a bit uneasy. If I had my wishes, and I know this would be unrealistic in the current environment, I would eliminate the words "free trade" from the entire thing. As regular readers know, I believe "free trade" is just a marketing phrase that covers up the real content of trade agreements. I fear that as long as we continue to let those words be used, it wires the political framing in such a way that we are always at war with something that sounds "free"…and if you’ve ever been in a line at a store offering something "free" (I avoid them but watch TV) people love "free". This is a messaging issue.

    I also question the truth of this sentence: "We must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably." I certainly like the second part after the comma but it’s an open question, in my mind, whether open markets–if

we mean "liberalization"–has created more wealth. As I wrote a year ago, my colleagues Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot explored the notion that open markets has been a good thing. They wrote:

In other words, even ignoring the re-distribution of income in the last few decades, the U.S. economy during a period in which it was mostly a closed economy (1946-1973) vastly outperformed the increasingly open economy that we have had over the last 33 years, in terms of raising living standards.

   Finally, do we really want to work to complete the Doha round? The Doha Round collapsed–and I want to kill it outright. It’s very nature–the way rules are negotiated–are polar opposite, in my view, to the earlier idea that trade is supposed to bring prosperity here and abroad. But I imagine this was something that was unavoidable in the current Democratic Party culture.