So, here’s my take on the vote yesterday on CAFTA–beyond the obvious, it’s a great sign why the Democrats will continue to be in the minority for some time. First, the vote was not a straight partisan vote: 10 Democrats voted YES, while 12 Republicans voted NO.
Here are the pathetic Democrats who voted YES–and to whom no one should give another cent in campaign contributions: Bingaman, N.M.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carper, Del.; Feinstein, Calif.; Lincoln, Ark.; Murray, Wash.; Nelson, Fla.; Nelson, Neb.; Pryor, Ark.; Wyden, Ore.
But, even the Democrats who voted against the deal did so in the most wimpy and weakest way, making clear that they just don’t get it. Hillary Clinton said in The New York Post, “My vote to oppose CAFTA is one taken with great difficulty.” And, of course, she did nothing to lead the floor fight against the bill, making no statement on the Senate floor. After all, she, like her husband (who lest we forget enthusiastically pushed NAFTA) are ardent so-called free traders.
The point is not that these so-called free trade agreements have weak labor and environmental standards–the reason given by some of the “centrist” Democrats who opposed CAFTA. The point is that those standards are after-thoughts and are seen as a sideshow, something to be fought over to add on and maybe throw a few millions bucks at to try to improve the horrendous conditions people worker under around the world.
The point is that these trade agreements start from the wrong place. They begin as deals to make it easier for corporations and investors to move capital and technology around the world. The provisions are drawn up with the first priority being: can a company benefit from a lower tariff? Can an investor protect his or her capital or intellectual property rights?
The point is not that people who oppose trade are afraid of the future because they do not want to engage in trade with other people. The point is that people who oppose trade are afraid of the future PRECISELY BECAUSE so-called free trade is not set-up to help people. It’s based not on skill or resource advantages one country might have over another.
It’s based on one thing: wages. And how far down those wages can be driven in the name of the new global economy that liberals like Thomas Friedman and Robert Reich lecture us that we should love and embrace.
What we need is a completely different starting point where the first words written on the blank piece of paper are any trade agreement’s First Principle: how does a trading relationship benefit people who live in the countries involved? Then, sketch out all the steps that need to be taken to accomplish that First Principle. And, then, and only then, does the question become: how do corporations become the vehicles to reach that First Principle?
Until we pull the Democratic Party back to that First Principle, it will just be seen as a different shade of Republicanism, promoting economic policies that do not benefit most people here and abroad.
It’s worth reading the extensive remarks made by Sen. Byron Dorgan, who lead the fight against CAFTA and has been one of the most steadfast opponents of so-called free trade. While his perspective sometimes has a slight feel of “America First,” he generally right on the mark in exposing the fraud of so-called free trade. So, I’ve posted a healthy chunk of what he had to say yesterday, some which I watched on C-SPAN (I am a junkie).
