How have advocating NAFTA and free trade helped politically?

[fujiyama]

I can't think of any way in which they helped politically. The extent to which they have hurt is debatable, but I don't see how it has helped.

The DLC is clueless. The majority are not in favor of unrestricted free trade and at the minimum want changes in NAFTA. It seems like Clinton kind of made a deal with the devil when he signed it into law and went after corporate donations. In a way the party lost a part of its soul by backing it.

We don't have to advocate strict protectionism. FAIR Trade is good and is needed, but the priority of the government should be to protect its workers' interests, the environment, and human rights. It should not be to protect the profits of corporations and a few very wealthy people at the top.

If we would adjust our stance on trade and gun control, I think we'd make some inroads. I'm not naive in believing our problems will be solved, but it sure wouldn't hurt.

[Deja Q]

1. Ask Bill Clinton. He made NAFTA into reality.

Not to be sardonic, but usually those who sign things into a law have a clue. And if they don't, then they should never have remained in power.

[bobweaver]

2. Clinton did enormous damage to the Democratic party by signing NAFTA.

That was the moment at which the Democratic party formally abandoned its traditional base, the working class, and became a pro-corporate party, siding with the ownership class. As a result they lost me as a supporter for the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections (I voted for third party candidates). Only in 2004 was I able to bring myself to vote for the Democratic candidate, and a lot of that was based on hatred for Bush and a desire to get Bush out. The Democratic party must cut itself off from the flow of corporate donations if it is ever going to restore its true base. If it doesn't, millions of people will have no compelling reason to vote for Democratic candidates. Because they are both tied to corporate donations, the Democrats and Republicans serve the same economic interest - the ownership class. Neither is supporting the interests of the middle or working classes, let alone the poor. The Democratic party must wean itself off from corporate donations and be supported only by a large number of small donations from individuals and from groups who represent the Democrats' true base, such as labor unions.

[InvisibleBallots]

3. and it was the last time Democrats won elections too, aside from Clinton

getting re-elected. Basically Clinton's got the deficit under control, made the rich people make up the difference, and that quickly helped the economy. This masked a lot of the damage that NAFTA was doing, and helped Clinton win re-election.

But the long term damage both to the US economy, and the Democratic party, is still being felt obviously. The DLC Democrats decided to abandon the FDR coalition, and split us right down the middle. Which of course, was their job.

[wyldwolf]

4. the list of Dems who supported it is quite long..

..and some on it might surprise you.

Were all to them "clueless?" Or are we just blessed with hindsight now?

[greenohio]

5. It hasn't hurt Dean any...at least in these circles.

I hate NAFTA and think it is killing us. But both the opposition and the leadership support it.

[IrateCitizen]

7. Dean has also said it was a mistake...

He's come out and said that he supported it when it was signed, but I believe he's also called it a mistake that must not be repeated, now that he's seen the effects.

I'm not happy with him that he supported it in the first place, but at least he admitted his error and pledged to not make the same mistake again. That's quite different than the corporatists within the Democratic Party who still insist it was a good thing, and support the continuation and expansion of similar policies in the future.

[greenohio]

8. He to this day says that NAFTA help Vermont gain jobs. Give it up

I've posted the quote many times here.

[IrateCitizen]

6. It hasn't, for several reasons...

In the 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton campaigned on criticizing NAFTA in the form that it was in, saying that he would not sign such an agreement unless it forced Mexico to raise its labor and environmental standards, so that it would bring everybody up instead of pulling everybody down. Then, after winning office, he pushed for it and signed it in the form negotiated by the Bush administration.

A long-time activist friend of mine said she remembered that the Christian Science Monitor had a reporter follow around Clinton administration officials and record the deals that were being made with Democratic Congressional members to get them to vote in favor of NAFTA. She described the whole thing as pretty despicable -- much the same as the kinds of maneuvers the Republicans engage in now.

I think that this hurt us on two levels. First, it served to confirm, rather than rebut the corporatist agenda pushed from the Reagan years on. It wasn't about supporting big business so long as it supported workers -- it was about supporting big business at the expense of workers and the environment. Second, it was a direct and outright betrayal of one of the core Democratic constituencies -- organized labor. I would say that this all fits in quite nicely with recent DLC calls for the Democrats to abandon pursuit of the working class and instead concentrate almost solely on upwardly mobile, young professionals.

Democratic support of NAFTA and further "free" trade pacts only served to narrow the gap between Democrats and Republicans. Trade policy is one area in which I think Nader's accusation of the parties being the same rings pretty true. While it's true that Kerry talked about "reviewing" all trade agreements and such, he was very roundabout when talking about what he would really do. At least someone like Kucinich, who comes from an area that has been hit exceptionally hard by NAFTA, was very direct about the measures he would take, and whether or not you agree with him, he DID present a vision that was quite different from Republican proposals, because it challenged the basic assertion that "free" trade is good for everyone.

The real tragedy in all of this is how it has negatively affected the majority in all three nations to enter into the agreement. At least in the EU, the design has truly been to raise standards for all who enter. In NAFTA, not only were US and Canadian workers left out to dry as facilities moved South -- but Mexican workers actually saw a drop in their wages, as 1.5 million farmers were kicked off their land and there were only about 500,000 new jobs to accomodate them as they moved to the cities en masse. Also, environmentally, it's been an unmitigated disaster -- the maquiladora regions along the border are cesspools where industrial waste is dumped into open gullies and workers crowd into shantytowns without running water or waste disposal.

In closing, I think that you're right in not only asserting the DLC's cluelessness on this, still pushing for "free" trade, but also how this all sold away a part of the party's soul that it has thus far been unable to get back. When the government went from being an advocate of the worker to an advocate of big business (and therefore against the worker) under a Democratic administration, it gave away what was once a galvanizing force in American politics for a short-term gain.

[greenohio]

17. So you support NAFTA just like the DLC does?

[GOPBasher]

9. I don't think they've helped politically. BUT

I do think reasonable people can disagree on those issues. I'm torn; on one hand, I think they helped the overall economy in the 1990s, but on the other hand, I know all the problems that are caused by free trade. I'm still open to hearing both sides on this issue, because I can't decide. I think there might be some middle ground, some "fair trade" that can be worked out.

But I agree with fujiyama, endorsing free trade is not helping us politically. It's not a very big issue. There are, in my opinion, some issues where we need to compromise for political reasons, but this isn't one of them.

How many people in the exit polls said they voted based on their candidate's stand on free trade?

[IrateCitizen]

10. How many polls asked that question?

How many people in the exit polls said they voted based on their candidate's stand on free trade?

How many polls asked that question? Furthermore, how many polls asked voters if they saw a discernable difference between trade policies being promoted by Bush and those being promoted by Kerry?

[GOPBasher]

12. Well in the "free response" poll, "moral values" won,

and a bunch of other issues were stated. I just don't think that being pro-free trade will help us with swing voters. I don't think that's an area we *must* compromise on, like the DLC would have us do. If we do come out in favor of free trade, it should *only* be because we actually think that's the right thing to do, not for political gain, but it won't gain us anything.

[IrateCitizen]

14. I should be clear -- I am NOT "free trade"...

My belief is that our free trade stance hurts us with more voters (especially blue-collar types) than it helps us with any. I actually think it would be a positive move for us to distance ourselves from such policies, and call for much fairer trade policies -- both for our own workers AND foreign markets.

[kodi]

11. "free" trade impoverishes the US now.

$50,000,000,000 (that is FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS) flows out of the US each and every month. each year we send overseas 5% of our GNP.

how does that help americans?

it doesn't.

it helps corporations.

we have arrived at the opening of the 21st century involved in a trade war with east asia no less threatening to american national strength than the cold war. and all the while US based corporations are destroying the US from the inside.

i want the leaders of this country to take economic policy as seriously as defense policy and understand that they are one and the same thing.

this linkage, viz., that a strong economy with full employment is the best way to secure the blessings of liberty is what the democrats must drive home.

if the democrats can make the case that trade policy is an essential feature in the defense of america, they can merge their strongest popular stances, ecomomics, with their weakest, national defense and undercut the GOP as the party that cares more about defending america.

as the chinese are using state mercantilism to undermine the economy of their largest adversary (the US), we should do the same to protect ourselves from them crippling our economy.

this is warfare by other means (unsymmetric warfare) and we are getting beat badly. the disruption to the US ecomony by state controlled chinese businesses is tantamount to an undeclared war on us by the chinese.

[IrateCitizen]

13. Economic policy and defense policy are NOT the same thing...

Actually, I think that economic policy is infinitely more important, because real power in the world today is wielded economically, not militarily. With its bloated military, the United States is still trying to maintain a 20th century hegemony in a 21st century world where that hegemony no longer exists.

Have you ever heard of the French demographer and historian Emmanuel Todd? He recently wrote a book I think you would find very interesting, based on your comments on this thread. It's called After the Empire.

You're entirely correct in pointing out the trade war with East Asia. I'd add the EU to that mix as well. There was an interesting article in the most recent issue of The Nation called "New Power for Old Europe". In it, the author talked about how the EU is going to revolutionize the global chemical industry through much more stringent regulations, and given US economic strength compared to the EU, there really isn't a damned thing the US can do about it -- and that global standards will likely come around to the EU standards, leaving the US the option of adapting or becoming a pariah.

[kodi]

16. they can be successfully argued as a single issue in politics

and it is exactly what the democrats need to do to exploit their inherent party strengths with trade issues to most americans while negating their perceived weaknesses on military-defense issues.
with your following remark:

Actually, I think that economic policy is infinitely more important, because real power in the world today is wielded economically, not militarily. With its bloated military, the United States is still trying to maintain a 20th century hegemony in a 21st century world where that hegemony no longer exists.

you admitted the value system in play here. a strong nation can be one only with a strong economy first. what good is it to pursue an economic policy that yields the same economic devestation to america as open warfare would?

if a foreign government is helping one of its companies comepete in the US market against american companies, we should expect the US government to help the american company win, not just help, but win. we do it either by helping with technological know-how but also with relieving the burden of competition the company faces with the tax code or employee benefits such as health insurance.

it is of vital national interest for american based companies to employ people.

[DireStrike]

15. I have the answer

1) Big business likes nafta
2) 98% of americans don't know what nafta stands for, let alone what it is or how it works. The media will not cover it and nobody will tell them. So it's not a voting issue. It's only a money issue.

[durutti]

18. God I wish people would stop saying "free trade".

It's a sad commentary on how the range of debate has been hijacked in this country that so many progressives adopt the right's terms of propaganda. Partial-brith abortion, political correctness, and now "free trade".

"Free trade" agreements are nothing of the sort. They force developing countries to remove "barriers" to trade but protect the interests of U.S. corporations.

[hollowdweller]

19. NAFTA removed the reason a lot of union voters went for the Dems and gun

control enacted during Clintons admin gave them a reason to vote against the Dems. I really liked Clinton, but those two things really hurt our ability to sustain his economic legacy.