If policy was constructed by the people, not the wishes of the lobbyists and corporate interests, we would never see a so-called "free trade" deal pass Congress again. That’s pretty much the upshot of the 2008 elections–though, believe me, this fight ain’t over yet.

    I would argue that the issue of trade was a significant factor in the sweeping victory by Democrats this past week. The focus on the economy was a broad message. But, underneath the broad topic, trade was clearly something that has penetrated deeply into the American electorate. I say this because this is now the second cycle that one can show an electoral movement on trade.

  In 2006, it was pretty clear that trade played a crucial role in the elections. Dozens of new members of Congress have won their elections in large part because they talked about their opposition to so-called "free trade", even as that opposition was wrapped inside a larger message about an economy controlled, guided and executed for the elite and for large multi-national corporations. And a majority of Republican voters are rejecting so-called "free trade". The people of this country have had it with so-called "free trade". And they are acting on their feelings at the ballot box.

  Here is an immediate analysis put out by Public Citizen:

Senate campaigns where trade was a top and winning issue:

 Colorado: Mark Udall (D) vs. Bob Schaeffer (R)

 New Hampshire: Jeanne Shaheen (D) vs. incumbent John Sununu (R)

 New Mexico: Tom Udall (D) vs. Steve Pearce (R)

 North Carolina: Kay Hagan (D) vs. incumbent Elizabeth Dole (R)

 More pending…

House campaigns where trade was a top and winning issue, with paid ads:

 North Carolina 8: Larry Kissell (D) vs. incumbent Robin Hayes (R)

 Pennsylvania 3: Kathy Dahlkemper (D) vs. incumbent Phil English (R)

 Alabama 2: Bobby Bright (D) vs. Jay Love (R), both ran on trade

 Illinois 14: Bill Foster (D) incumbent vs. Jim Oberweis (R)

 Michigan 7: Mark Schauer (D) vs. incumbent Tim Walberg (R)

 Michigan 9: Gary Peters (D) vs. incumbent Joe Knollenberg (R)

 Mississippi 1: Travis Childers (D) incumbent vs. Greg Davis (R)

 Nevada 3: Dina Titus (D) vs. incumbent Jon Porter (R)

 New York 25: Dan Maffei (D) vs. Dale Sweetland (R)

 New York 29: Eric Massa (D) vs. incumbent Randy Kuhl (R)

 Ohio 1: Steve Driehaus (D) vs. incumbent Steve Chabot (R)

 Ohio 16: John Boccieri (D) vs. Kirk Schuring (R), both ran on trade

 And if you are a real junkie on this, you can see a lot of those ads here

The bottom line:

As of the publication of this preliminary text, 33 new fair traders won House seats, representing a net gain of 26 in the House’s fair-trade composition.

That is truly fantastic. The report is full of very specific examples and stories about campaigns. This is one my favorites:

Another high-profile victory for fair trade came in North Carolina, where former textile worker Larry Kissell (D) defeated incumbent Rep. Robin Hayes (R). Hayes’ record on trade was similar to that of English. A week before the CAFTA vote in 2005, Hayes stated that he was "flat-out, completely, horizontally opposed to CAFTA,"17 arguing that CAFTA is an extension of NAFTA that was "not in the best interest of a core constituency I represent. Every time I drive through Kannapolis and I see those empty plants, I know there is no way I could vote for

CAFTA."

But when the day of the vote came, Hayes initially cast a "no" vote but then was persuaded by Republican House leaders to change his vote to a "yes" after the House Republican leadership kept the voting open 45 minutes past the time limit. Unbelievably, this was the second time Hayes has flipped his vote on a major piece of trade legislation: in 2001, Hayes switched from initially casting a "no" vote to "yes," making him the deciding vote that gave President Bush Fast Track trade authority, a measure he had previously (and vehemently) opposed. This authority was responsible for CAFTA’s negotiation and passage.

See, soon-to-be-ex Rep. Hayes, when you LIE, the voters know it and don’t like it. And Kissell pointed that out in the campaign. In my opinion, this was THE issue that one that seat.

In addition:

Fifteen of the leading incumbent fair-trade members of Congress won tough re-election battles. These members voted the fair-trade position 100 percent of the time, cosponsored the Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment (TRADE) Act, or did both.

They come from the Republican and Democratic Parties, from California to Connecticut, from Mississippi to Minnesota, from the New Democrat and Blue Dog Coalitions, and from the Hispanic and Progressive Caucuses.

Here is the bottom line conclusion, which I agree with:

The challenge facing the newly elected and the reelected is to translate electoral messaging into policy change. This means no more unfair trade deals based on the NAFTA model and no expansions of the WTO – pacts which already limit their domestic policy space to promote their hopeful, more forward-looking agenda. This also means taking action to repair the root causes of the symptoms of the current system – downward pressure on wages, job offshoring, unsafe imports – on which they campaigned.

The polls and election returns discussed in this report show that the American public is demanding a comprehensive discussion about our globalization policy. Moreover, over 80 members of Congress are cosponsors of Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Rep. Mike Michaud’s (D-Maine) Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment (TRADE) Act, which lays out a process to review existing agreements, renegotiate them to meet basic

criteria, and reform negotiating processes and substantive policies to ensure future pacts build a new model of globalization and trade that can benefit more people. This reform agenda was sponsored by nine House committee chairs, 25 subcommittee chairs, members from all regions

and all caucuses – all before the election cycle brought new prominence to the public demand for new approaches to trade and globalization policy.

President-elect Barack Obama, who won crucial support in the primaries and general election due to his fair-trade commitments on the campaign trail, can do much to orient the country towards a needed change of course on our failed globalization and trade policies. And, indeed, success on the middle-class economic-security, health-care, energy- and climate-reform agenda that gained him American voters’ support requires significant changes to the status-quo model of globalization and the "trade" agreements now implementing it – if only to retake the non-trade policy space that is currently invaded by these instruments. As the IMF, World Bank and WTO

attempt to muscle their way back into global economic governance – after a decade of public rejection – in the face of the financial, food-price and climate crises, it is all the more urgent that U.S. policymakers recognize that there can no success with domestic policy goals absent changes

to the current international commercial rules and institutions. This not only makes sense for the political brain, but also for the policy challenges facing the United States in 2009 and beyond.

I’m going to get on a conference call soon with Sen. Sherrod Brown, Steelworkers president Leo Gerard and Public Citizen Global Trade Watch Director Lori Wallach who will talk about the results. If I have time (unlikely today–sorry), I will try to add any new information from that call.