Democrats Won't Abandon NAFTA
By Aaron Goldstein (03/01/08)
During their debate on February 26th in Cleveland, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tried to outdo each other as to who would take the United States out of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) faster. If elected, both candidates threatened to withdraw from NAFTA if the side labor and environmental agreements were not renegotiated.
This kind of talk might very well resonate with Ohio voters as they struggle with a 5.5% unemployment rate (as compared to the national rate of 4.9% in January 2008.) The Buckeye state is losing manufacturing jobs while gaining in foreclosures. ( http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/02/25/daily57.html?just=b_ln_hl ) NAFTA is a convenient culprit for Democratic voters to chew on as they go to the polls in the statewide primary on Tuesday, March 4th.
While talk of shafting NAFTA might play well in Ohio, it does not play so well in Ottawa. The day after the debate, Canada’s Finance Minister Jim Flaherty publicly expressed concern over Democratic discourse on NAFTA. “It is a concern…But I would think that it’s very important that whoever the nominee is enters into a discussion with those who are very knowledgeable about NAFTA,” said Flaherty, “NAFTA is of tremendous benefit to Americans. And perhaps the nominees have not had the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the benefit to Americans and the American economy of NAFTA.” ( www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/02/27/flaherty-nafta.html )
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both wax philosophical about the winds of changes. But at least where it concerns NAFTA it is little more than hot air.
According to CTV News, within the last month Austan Goolsbee, a senior economic adviser in the Obama campaign contacted the Government of Canada, through its Consulate General office in Chicago, to advise them if they hear Obama talk about NAFTA that it is nothing more than rhetoric. Both the Obama campaign and the Canadian Embassy in Washington deny the conversation took place. It is also believed there has been similar contact made with the Canadian government by the Clinton campaign concerning rhetoric on NAFTA. ( www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080228/turkey_Gates_080228/20080229?hub=Politics ) Put another way, Obama and Clinton might be offering the voters in Ohio red meat but they won’t be eating any beef.
All of this talk about NAFTA by the Democrats has been amusing to John McCain, a staunch supporter of free trade. At a campaign stop in Round Rock, Texas on February 29th, McCain praised Canada while assailing Obama and Clinton. “One of our greatest assets in Afghanistan are our Canadian friends. We need our Canadian friends, and we need their continued support in Afghanistan,” said McCain, “So what do we do? The two Democratic candidates for president say they’re going to unilaterally abrogate NAFTA. How do you think the Canadian people are going to react to that?” ( www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/print/CTVNews/20080229/mccain_nafta_080229/20080229?hub=TopStories )
McCain later acknowledged that Obama and Clinton weren’t seeking to abrogate NAFTA so much as to renegotiate it. Yet their tactics reveal much about the Democratic Party.
One the one hand, both Obama and Clinton are telling voters in Ohio what they want to hear or what they think they want to hear. Obama and Clinton would have Ohio voters believe they would scrap a 14-year-old continental trade agreement if Canada and Mexico are unwilling to renegotiate peripheral agreements on labor and the environment. On the other hand, both Obama and Clinton are reassuring the Canadian government (and presumably the Mexican government) to disregard anything they say about NAFTA. John McCain, commenting specifically on Obama, put it well when he said on February 28th, “I don’t think it’s appropriate to go to Ohio and tell people one thing while your aide is calling the Canadian ambassador and telling him something else. I don’t think that’s straight talk.” ( www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4360446&page=1 )
Democrats have about as much intention of jettisoning NAFTA as Hezbollah has to donate money to the Anti-Defamation League. In the end, Obama and Clinton’s talk on NAFTA does not serve the voters of Ohio or the rest of the country well. It demonstrates the Democrats are giving voters false hope as if renegotiating NAFTA will bring back lost manufacturing jobs. It demonstrates the Democrats trust government more than they trust the marketplace to solve economic problems. It demonstrates the Democrats want to give the appearance they are doing something about the economy when, in fact, there is little they can do other than to stay out of the way.
While NAFTA has made economic gains for the United States, Canada and Mexico not everyone has benefited. Jobs have been lost. People who once worked in an auto plant in Dayton for twenty years might have to choose welfare if there are no openings at Wal-Mart. Of course, the last thing someone who lost their job wants to hear is that the government can’t do anything to get their job back. In January, Republicans in neighboring Michigan didn’t want to hear McCain tell them their jobs weren’t coming back and voted for Mitt Romney. McCain could have told Michigan the auto industry was going to make a comeback but to have done so would have insulted the intelligence of the voting public. The second gravest disservice an elected official can do is to make a promise they know they cannot keep. The gravest disservice an elected official can do is to make a promise they have no intention of keeping.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Aaron Goldstein
