Let’s go back in history briefly to the 1990s. In 1993, Bill Clinton pushed through NAFTA, over the objection of a large number of Democrats, with a large number of Republicans joining with the Democratic president to get NAFTA through the House (The Senate has always been far more receptive to so-called "free trade"). NAFTA was a piece of legislation negotiated by a Republican president. In 1994, the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives. Most of the analysis of that election pointed to the failure of the Clinton Administration to pass its health care plan. I don’t doubt that the health care debacle was a major factor, and perhaps, the most important factor, leading to the loss of dozens of Democratic House seats.

    But, I also believe that NAFTa played a significant role. For a very long time, the labor movement had been educating its members about the bad things that NAFTA would bring. And, at the very least, I would argue that the passage of NAFTA depressed Democratic turnout in a number of races–union members felt betrayed by the Clinton Administration on an issue that they had been told–rightly–would reshape the rules of the global economy. There simply wasn’t the enthusiasm.

   Now it’s 2009 and we have these two trends heading for a collision. Yesterday:

A group of progressive House Democrats plan Wednesday to call on the Obama administration to fundamentally rethink U.S. trade policy: Scrap the Doha round of trade talks and formally initiate a review of the major existing trade agreements the U.S. is a member of.

At a Capitol Hill rally, members of the House Trade Working Group will call on the administration to use next week’s World Trade Organization ministerial meeting in Geneva to push for a complete overhaul of the body, according to a senior House Democratic aide.

   On the other hand, the president said this:

U.S. President Barack Obama pledged Thursday morning to ratify a free-trade agreement with South Korea that has been stuck for two years, challenging the U.S. Congress to separate South Korea from other Asian nations enjoying vast trade surpluses with the U.S.

   The progressives in the House have 127 co-sponsors for a bill that would effectively say, "stop, our current trade policy has to be reviewed because it makes no sense and is detrimental to our country’s basic interest." That is more than half the House caucus. In the face of that concern, we have a president who is determined to push through a deal negotiated by a Republican Administration.

   Who is in charge of this political strategy at the White House? What exactly is gained by ginning up a fight with Democrats? If the thought is that, electorally, Democratic voters will stick with the president no matter what and the target is to appeal to independents by appearing to be pro-"free trade", then, someone is not looking at history. Independents are as worried about the economy as anyone and I do not think that they believe so-called "free trade" makes sense. And a likely difficult fight inside the party over the Korea deal is not going to make for a great talking point when the Administration calls for Democrats to rally to the polls. Explain to me why autoworkers in Michigan, or steelworkers in Pennsylvania, will think the Democratic Party is looking out for the economic interests of the average worker by carrying the water for a bankrupt trade strategy.

   This is a grave mistake.