Obama And Free Trade: Is He Getting Better?

[ihavenobias]

Someone created a thread aiming to show that Obama was bad on trade (presumably to shield Hillary from NAFTA criticism) by posting an October 2007 article from respected progressive columnist David Sirota. The article explained that Obama had voted to expand some trade deals in the Senate in the past.

Well, here's an excerpt from Sirota's much more recent article (from 2/12/08) on Obama and Trade that may be of interest (EDIT, there's an even MORE recent article from today from Sirota on this. I'll post the link at the bottom below the link from yesterday):

"...I've been troubled by some of Obama's votes on trade, and I've made no bones about that. But this rhetoric is encouraging.

As I have written, it's good politics for Obama to put our lobbyist-written trade policy on trial in states like Wisconsin, Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. But that' s not why I am encouraged. I am encouraged because it is good for the country for a major candidate to put this issue at the center of the debate in the stretch run of the nominating process.

Since Edwards left the race, we haven't had anyone really focusing on this issue on the Democratic side. But it looks like that may be changing. And whoever you are for in this race, if you are a progressive, you will agree that's a good thing, indeed..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/obama-putting-attack-on-n_b_86345.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/smart-move-obama-goes-po_b_86443.html

[jackson_dem]

1. His rhetoric doesn't match his record

He is a free trader, his policies are still free trade and actually more conservative than Hillary's trade policies. He is only changing his rhetoric because he has generally struggled with working folks and he desperately needs them in states like Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

[ihavenobias]

6. I just discovered Sirota wrote another (incredibly fair) article on this topic today...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/smart-move-obama-goes-po_b_86443.html

"...True, Obama's a bit late to this - but as someone concerned more with movement building than with an individual candidate, I say better late than never. And, after all, the primary process is a time that can truly shape candidates in a genuine way. As just one example, Howard Dean was the moderate, near-DLC governor of Vermont, and had a very authentic and profound conversion into a more proud progressive populist during his 2004 presidential run. We should embrace that kind of transformation - and hold out the possibility that perhaps a similar dynamic is playing out with Obama on an issue like trade.

Sure, there's some opportunism here as well. Obama is likely trying to walk down the path John Edwards first courageously blazed in this race. He is looking out at the next cluster of primary states and knows that these are the ones that have been hit hard by NAFTA and other rigged trade deals. He looks at Ohio and sees Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) - a man who was elected in 2006 based largely on his opposition to our current trade policy. He also sees the New York Times report that former President Bill Clinton is going to be campaigning in Ohio - and knows that the best way to make that boomerang against his opponent is to remind Ohio voters that it was Bill and Hillary Clinton who jammed NAFTA down the Buckeye State's throat.

But opportunism isn't bad. If Obama sees his opportunity in voicing a progressive, populist message on trade, then that's a good thing. That means that we have a leading presidential candidate who sees being a populist and a progressive as a major opportunity. For the progressive movement, that's what success looks like.

Obama is sure to be berated by national pundits for going populist - it's precisely the kind of message that drives well-heeled Establishment propagandists across the partisan spectrum crazy. From Joe Klein to David Broder to David Brooks, questioning the economic elite is seen as the ultimate blasphemy. As Sherrod Brown told the Nation this week, when he ran in 2006, "I got one newspaper endorsement in the state of the big nine papers." Most opposed him because he dared to challenge the economic orthodoxy that says we must have trade deals that encourage corporations to eliminate jobs, destroy the environment and exploit workers, while legislating protectionism for patents, intellectual property, copyrights and other corporate profit shields."

[Radical Activist]

I've never seen anything Sirota wrote about Obama that I would call fair.

He lost a lot of credibility with me over the last 6 months.

[ihavenobias]

15. He should at least get SOME credit in that department

for writing *this* in his article today "...I say that as someone who has been critical of Obama in the past for his timidity on issues like trade - issues that make the Establishment particularly uncomfortable." (There was a hyperlink included)

He's also written articles on the topic criticizing both Hillary and Obama. I'm not sure exactly how fair he's supposed to be beyond that.

[jackson_dem]

11. He's pandering because it helps him in the upcoming states

He isn't changing any of his positions, just his rhetoric. His rhetoric doesn't match his record.

[anigbrowl]

2. Free trade is a good thing.

Protectionism weakens our economy and robs young people of their future. Protectionism is subsidizing a buggy factory when everyone is buying automobiles. Few people really get this because few people take time to really think about economics. I felt the same way as you until I was about 30 or so, and then I realized how very wrong I was.

If you're against free trade, imagine this scenario: all interstate commerce is taxed. Each of the 50 states inposes a duty on anything made outside the state. You think that'd bring our economy up or down?

[jillan]

4. We need to deal with the human rights issues before we sign any more agreements.

[Radical Activist]

8. The current trade system isn't about tarrifs.

The WTO, NAFTA and neoliberal trade policies have nothing to do with the kind of tariff's in you scenario. Its nothing but a straw man argument. We're way beyond that. I think you need to do more research from another perspective than the corporate-created consensus.

[ihavenobias]

9. No, *Fair Trade* is a good thing, "Free Trade" screws over most people

As David Sirota notes in his new article today, there IS protectionism in "free trade" deals, and it's exactly the wrong kind of protectionism(!):

"...trade deals that encourage corporations to eliminate jobs, destroy the environment and exploit workers, while legislating protectionism for patents, intellectual property, copyrights and other corporate profit shields."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/smart-move-obama-goes-po_b_86443.html

[jillan]

3. He just voted for the Peru trade act.

Actually both him and Hillary did.



Not that it matters anymore, but Biden and Dodd voted against it.
Both said they would not vote for another trade act until Human Rights were addressed in the countries we trade with.
What a shame, these two are out of the race.

[jackson_dem]

5. And he supported South Korea trade and believes CAFTA was a "net positive"

He voted against CAFTA for political reasons. His public explanation is that the concerns of labor were not discussed enough but it is revealing, and consistent with his free trade record, that he did not object to CAFTA on the merits.

Here's some more on Obama and Peru. He is not what he is fooling people into thinking he is.

-snip-

"Obama said he would vote for a Peruvian trade agreement next week, in response to a question from a man in Londonderry, NH who called NAFTA and CAFTA a disaster for American workers. He said he supported the trade agreement with Peru because it contained the labor and environmental standards sought by groups like the AFL-CIO, despite the voter's protests to the contrary. He also affirmed his support for free trade."

The voter's "protests to the contrary" are exactly right. The AFL-CIO does not support the bill expanding NAFTA into Peru, and the much-trumpeted labor/environmental standards leave enforcement up to the Bush administration, rather than empowering third parties to enforce them (like corporations have the power to enforce investor rights provisions in these same trade agreements). Leaving enforcement to the Bush administration -- or any administration -- is the biggest loophole possible. It is precisely why corporate lobbyists have bragged to reporters that the standards are not enforceable.

Obama is the first presidential candidate to officially declare his/her support for the NAFTA expansion moving through the Congress. His announcement is not necessarily surprising, considering he was the keynote speaker at the launch of the Hamilton Project -- a Wall Street front group working to drive a wedge between Democrats and organized labor on globalization issues. His announcement comes just days after a Wall Street Journal poll found strong bipartisan opposition to lobbyist-written NAFTA-style trade policies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/breaking-oba...

[jillan]

7. That needs it's own thread.

;)

[jackson_dem]

13. Take one for the team

I guess I could be grandfathered in because Skinner didn't make his post until about 4 today but I want to honor the spirit of the new rule. It is an important topic and folks need to know about St. Obama's record. Can you do it? ;)

[Radical Activist]

10. Your engaging in mind reading.

If Obama said he voted against CAFTA because it doesn't meet labor standards then that would be voting based on the merits. I guess you think it was only political because you always look for the ugly, negative way to look at everything Obama does. You can't read his mind and your single minded hate isn't healthy.

[jackson_dem]

12. That isn't what he said

He had no problem with the substance of the agreement and said it would "probably be a net plus" (Obama consistently hedges his views so he can appeal to all sides of an issue and this is a classic example). He apparently just wanted more time given to air labor's concerns, at least that is his official position. In reality he voted that way under political pressure.

I think it was political because he is a politician. I think Edwards vote for the IWR was political too.

[Radical Activist]

14. Amazing that you can find a way to be angry at someone for voting the right way.

Jesus.

[jackson_dem]

16. I am not angry at him for CAFTA

I am angry at him fooling people into thinking he is not a DLC style free trader. He is more conservative on trade than Hillary yet Hillary gets killed for what Bill did and no one even looks at Obama's trade record.

[OHdem10]

17. What does he reccommend we do about Trade Policies.

[ihavenobias]

18. Here

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#trade

As far as his speech, he said this:

"...when I am President, I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers. And I'll pass the Patriot Employer Act that I've been fighting for ever since I ran for the Senate - we will end the tax breaks for companies who ship our jobs overseas, and we will give those breaks to companies who create good jobs with decent wages right here in America."

Here's a link to info on the Patriot Employer Act: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=283830

[jillan]

19. Then why did he just vote for the Peru trade deal which expanded NAFTA?

Even Edwards called him out on that in his last debate.

[ihavenobias]

21. Honestly

I don't know, I'm not familiar with the specifics of that deal. On his website he uses CAFTA as an example of a bad trade deal he won't support, so if he has a yes vote on that, it's much more of an issue IMO.

He also didn't say (to my knowledge) that he wants to eliminate NAFTA, but rather, to fix it. Speaking of Edwards, if anyone can relate to making bad votes in the past that don't match up with current populist rhetoric, it was him! I say that as a former supporter (supported him until he dropped out).

I agree with David Sirota 100% on this: I'm disappointed with Obama's votes but the simple fact that he's at least talking this way is GOOD for the country (people need to hear this message so they can create pressure to demand changes, and hopefully create media buzz), even if some of it is based on political opportunism (*of course* some of it is, like most things).

*If* the choice is between two people with bad votes in the past on trade but one person is weakly against it now while the other candidate is starting to come on strong on the issue, I'll take the latter, again, all else being equal. Because that's all we have to go on (any Edwards supporter that disagrees has NO room to do so as this was EXACTLY the situation with Edwards).

[TexasObserver]

20. Obama is definitely stroking the anti NAFTA theme now.