I wonder: did Steven Spielberg, fresh off “War of The Worlds” (entertaining but nothing stupendous, says your sometime film critic), write Jonathan Weisman’s article today in The Washington Post “CAFTA Reflects Democrats’ Shift From Trade Bills“? (registration required). After all, there are enough scary monsters in that article to put any horror film to shame: Protectionists!!! Isolationism!!! Labor Unions!!!

The article is not surprising–just another piece from a journalist who probably went to some college where he took an Economics 101 course that taught him about the virtues of free-trade (this being the theory espoused by David Ricardo). But, it’s such a dumb article in its lack of historical context that it’s almost breathtaking…

Weissman sets up the article as a contest between Republicans and forward-looking “Free trade” Democrats. The frame of the article is set-up with this paragraph: “But the Democrats’ near-unanimous stand against CAFTA carries long-term risks for a party leadership struggling to regain the appearance of a moderate governing force, some Democrats acknowledge. A swing toward isolationism could reinforce voters’ suspicions that the party is beholden to organized labor and is anti-business, while jeopardizing campaign contributions, especially from Wall Street.”

Or as the Democratic Leadership Council’s Marshall Whitman tells Weissman, “During the 1990s, party leaders used pro-trade positions to show moderate voters and business interests they are willing to stand up to their labor union backers and govern from the center…”

Okay, so here’s the real story, Mr. Weissman. So-called “free trade” does not exist–it’s a rhetorical fantasy, which any honest expert would have to admit if you pointed out that real free trade agreements could be written in about 5 pages, not the hundreds of pages of exemptions and deals made for investment and capital. Theoritical free trade cannot exist in an economy where capital can move with the blink of an eye around the world.

So-called “free trade” deals begin as ways 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?

Labor and environmental standards in any of these so-called “free trade” agreements are a fig-leaf: they have very little force in law and do very little to control the global market that is based mainly on driving down wages. Okay, maybe workers won’t get tortured or killed if they try to form a union in El Salvador but they will still earn a slave-wage.

And it’s curious that Mr. Weissman made no mention of the actual track record of these trade deals. Public Citizen recently detailed the promises made in exchange for votes on so-called “free trade” agreements–and, then, how most of those promises were broken.

Weissman takes as gospel the notion that centrism and moderation are the perscription for the Democratic Party. Hmmmmm….That’s curious since it’s interesting to note, indeed, that the passage of NAFTA in 1993 and its implementation in 1994 tracks exactly the decline of the Democratic Party, which, aside from the re-election of Bill Clinton, has lost every national election since and has less power more than a decade after NAFTA.

Could it be plausible that, in fact, beginning with the Clinton Administration’s embrace of so-called free trade (it was Bill, after all, that pushed and bribed House Democrats to support NAFTA), voters have had less and less a sense what the Democratic Party’s economic principles are, as distinguished from the Republicans? Voters are not suspicious about Democrats on the economic issues raised by so-called “free trade” agreements, which most voters do not support–they just don’t see the Democrats articulating a clear vision of the alternative.

As I pointed out last week after the Senate passed CAFTA, the point is that these trade agreements start from the wrong place. 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.

The only positive piece of information in this truly dumb piece is the observation that Democrats’ opposition to CAFTA might dry up campaign contributions from business. Must make Hillary Clinton tremble with fear. To which I say, Amen! Maybe the Democratic party might, then, find its soul again. After all, as I’ve always contended, given a choice between Republicans and Republican-lite, any smart voter will opt for the real thing.