This is huge: Republican voters are now overwhelmingly opposed to so-called "free trade." Not surprising but really a potential goldmine for Democrats—if they have the foresight and courage to seize it. We are talking about a possible major realignment based on economic issues.
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?
