what's the party support like for NAFTA/CAFTA these days?

[ulysses]

Has free trade worked for us as a political issue?

[RufusTFirefly]

1. There isn't unanimity on this issue within the Democratic Party

Democrats in general argue that they are for "fair trade." What that actually means varies from candidate to candidate, I'm afraid.

Republicans are more likely to uncritically support so-called "free-trade agreements."

Here are the votes on CAFTA, for example

Biden: NO
Brownback: YES
Clinton: NO
Dodd: NO
Hagel: YES
Hunter: NO
Kucinich: NO
McCain: YES
Obama: NO
Paul: NO
Tancredo: NO

[ulysses]

3. let me put it another way.

Although it was negotiated by Bush I, NAFTA was signed by Bill Clinton, to much fanfare. In the years since, how have we done politically as a result of free trade?

[KoKo]

2. Haven't heard any polling on it.....but would think that the numbers wouldn't look too good.

Given that the Media focuses on Horse Race and "who is Up & Down" every couple days...I think we won't be hearing too much about POLICY in POLLS...but the race and what the "consultants" on both sides want the polling to be about. :shrug: that's just my humble opinion, though.

America HAS CHANGED....I don't expect that to be reflected until the APATHY factor kicks in along about this time next year when we will get "deep" polls as they wonder why Americans are angry with both parties.

[ulysses]

4. c'mon, KoKo -

you know polls aren't about policy. :D

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

5. Obama says "globalization is inexorable"

Hillary says "We need more H1Bs."

It works because it keeps the money flowing into the coffers. Too bad we get fucked in the end, whether it's a D or an R in charge.

[ulysses]

6. yeah, but I had it mind more the rank and file.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

7. Apparently we don't matter. n/t

[ulysses]

8. ah, but those who support things like NAFTA

like to tell us that they have broad support in doing so.

And we don't matter to the degree that we refuse to matter.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

9. The only people I know who support free trade are overly idealistic college kids

They buy into what they're taught in theory, but fail to see the practical suicide of so-called free trade agreements.

[MGKrebs]

10. Hi Uly. It's a complicated issue.

You know I've spent a few posts defending NAFTA, but I realize now that I was defending the principal of NAFTA, and opponents are opposing the reality of NAFTA. I can see now that although I feel that something like NAFTA is inevitable and necessary, this particular agreement was poorly executed, and as always in such circumstances, somehow the flaws favor the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and vulnerable.

We can't be protectionist, but we can't just let every thrid-world despot sell his crap here with no restrictions either. In Clinton's defense, he did also support and sign environmental (NAAEC) and labor attachments (NAALC) to NAFTA. These agreements are weak, but their weakness is perhaps more due to the subsequent fall of the US legislature into Republican hands than anything else. One would like to think that a Dem Congress would have nurtured and strengthened those agreements.

So in totality, in 1993, if you had confidence that you could manage the economy effectively, it might have been a good time to embark down this road. Low unemployment ahead, surpluses, jobs being created all over the place. A risk yes, but also remember that we had just recently bailed Mexico out of a severe financial crisis, because we ARE heavily invested in their success. The more Mexico struggles, the more her workers will try to come here for jobs.

I am conflicted on this.

[ulysses]

11. hey, Krebs.

I have no problem in principle with globalization. I suspect that it is inevitable, and *can* be a huge benefit to people worldwide.

As realized, and as you point out, NAFTA itself is a desperately flawed thing.

In Clinton's defense, he did also support and sign environmental (NAAEC) and labor attachments (NAALC) to NAFTA. These agreements are weak, but their weakness is perhaps more due to the subsequent fall of the US legislature into Republican hands than anything else.

Sorry - NAFTA became law on 1/1/1994. The GOP didn't take control of Congress until a year later.

One would like to think that a Dem Congress would have nurtured and strengthened those agreements.

One would like to think, yes.

So in totality, in 1993, if you had confidence that you could manage the economy effectively, it might have been a good time to embark down this road.

I'm not even sure what "managing the economy effectively" means in this context. Was the foresight really not there to recognize that manufacturing jobs would be outsourced, and that the tech jobs for which folks were to be retrained would soon follow?

[MGKrebs]

12. Oh I think a certain amount of lost jobs were anticipated, it's just that

if Team Clinton had enough confidence that they could manage the economy well, then they could create new jobs almost as fast as we lost them.

On the one hand I think the wild card is that China became a much bigger factor much more quickly than anyone anticipated, on the other hand, I wonder if some of those guys DID anticipate China and were at least trying to keep as many jobs in this hemisphere as possible.

[ulysses]

13. come on.

if Team Clinton had enough confidence that they could manage the economy well, then they could create new jobs almost as fast as we lost them.

Do you really think that Team Clinton could have kept up with the pace of job loss? Did things hinge on what they did to that degree?