The most interesting responses during last night’s presidential "debate" were those on trade, specifically, those answers to Keith Olbermann’s question about whether NAFTA should be scraped or fixed. I admit that I have an abnormal interest in the topic but, to me, it is the defining issue for the future for workers here and abroad. And the answers by most of the candidates was troubling.
I think part of the problem in the exchange was Olbermann’s framing of the question (or maybe he was just as hot as the rest of us in the humidity). Clearly, Olbermann does not have a clue about the details of NAFTA or so-called "free trade"; in fairness to him, few reporters do. The question is not whether to eliminate NAFTA or "fix" it. It’s really a larger question: the premise of so-called "free trade" is flawed. It is a structure that allows corporations to manage investment and capital and, then, asks that the interest of workers and society at large be shoe-horned in. So, you can’t really "fix" NAFTA without an overhaul of the system.
Only Rep. Dennis Kucinich gave a very clear, forthright answer: pull out of NAFTA and the World Trade Organization. "We need to go forward to [sic] trade that’s based on workers’ rights, human rights and environmental quality principles."
Most of the "fixes" the various candidates called for are troubling. Sen. Obama, in my view, showed that he knows very little about trade (and, a minor point, about who runs Canada, saying he would call the "president of Canada"…eh, that would be the prime minister, Senator) when he said "we can get labor agreements in that agreement right now. The fact is that NAFTA does have labor side agreements. And they don’t work and won’t ever work because no one can seriously believe that you can enforce these kinds of deals (imagine trying to police hundreds of thousands of workplaces in Mexico, Canada and the U.S.–impossible). He did highlight the fact that corporate lobbyists shape so-called "free trade" agreements but, absent a few rhetorical lines, he didn’t challenge the fundamental underpinnings of trade and globalization.
I also think that John Edwards dropped the ball a bit on the issue that he had really staked out a clear comprehensive position on just a few days ago. As I pointed out, Edwards took on the major ideological underpinnings of trade, in particular the Chapter 11 provisions of NAFTA and other so-called "free trade" deals–provisions that allow corporations to seek damages, before closed-door tribunals, for laws that they claim impinge on their rights under so-called "free trade" deals. But, he failed to hammer that point home. A miss.
Sen. Clinton’s response was also troubling. It is good that she recently announced that she would oppose the so-called "free trade" deal with South Korea. But, several responses leave big questions:
NAFTA and the way it’s been implemented has hurt a lot of American workers.
Respectfully, NAFTA has been implemented EXACTLY the way it was envisioned. It is a deal–and I have read it–that speaks almost entirely about how to advance corporate investment and corporate rights.
And:
The Bush Administration has been totally missing in action.
Sure, this current president is a disaster when it comes to trade. But, NAFTA was promoted and pushed by a Democratic Administration and there has been a bi-partisan understanding, particularly in the Senate, on trade. I do believe that we face a much better environment on the question of trade deals. But, simply pointing fingers at Republicans shirks an honest look at what we should do in the future.
Finally:
I don’t want to give fast track authority to this president
I added the emphasis. This could have been innocuous or inadvertent. But, "fast track" authority should not be given to any president, Republican or Democratic. It is blatantly undemocratic–it allows a president to make a trade deal and, then, force the deal through on an up-or-down vote, with our elected representatives prohibited from offering any amendments to the legislation. I don’t want any president to have that power.
With Olbermann flying by the seat of his pants, there was no follow up and no depth to the question. Too bad because we need to have a much clearer idea of what the Democratic nominee will do on the most crucial economic issue facing us.
