Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama Goes Soft on Free Trade
Republican John McCain is a most militantly pro-free trade presidential candidate. That fact, alone, should guarantee his defeat in Ohio and other industrial states where his strategists entertain hopes of surfing a "Reagan Democrat" crossover of working-class Democratic voters to the GOP column this fall.
All that is required is that Barack Obama campaign as a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement and other deals that have battered workers, farmers, communities and the environment in the US and abroad.
Unfortunately, Democrat Barack Obama, who sent smart signals on trade issues when he was competing with Hillary Clinton for his party's presidential nomination, is backtracking toward the insider territory occupied by McCain.
Obama's interview with Fortune magazine -- headlined "Obama: NAFTA Not So Bad After All" -- is the best news the McCain camp has received since Mike Huckabee folded his run for the Republican nomination.
If Obama takes the economic issue that white working-class voters best understand off the table, he creates a huge opening for McCain in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
And that is precisely what the Democrat cynically dismisses his appropriately anti-NAFTA rhetoric during the primary season as "overheated and amplified."
In her interview with the candidate, Fortune's Nina Easton reminded Obama that earlier this year he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake" and suggested that he would use an opt-out clause in the trade agreement between the US, Canada and Mexico to demand changes that would be more favorable to workers and farmers in all three countries.
Obama replied that, "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified" -- which would have been enough of an indication that he was backing off the stance that contributed significantly to his success in the February 19 Wisconsin primary that proved to be a critical turning point for his campaign.
But the presumptive Democratic nominee for president dug the hole deeper.
"Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he continued, suggesting that those who doubted his sincerity when he denounced NAFTA in a speech to Janesville, Wisconsin, autoworkers might have been right.
Abandoning the tough talk of the winter and spring, Obama sounded an awfully lot like free-trader McCain when he said he was for "opening up a dialogue" with trading partners Canada and Mexico "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people."
Easton took it that way.
"The general campaign is on, independent voters up for grabs, and Barack Obama is toning down his populist rhetoric - at least when it comes to free trade," she began. "In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee suggests he doesn't want to unilaterally blow up NAFTA after all."
Referring to Obama's soft-peddling of the fair-trade position he embraced in the primary campaign, Easton writes, "That tone stands in marked contrast to his primary campaign's anti-NAFTA fusillades. The pact creating a North American free-trade zone was President Bill Clinton's signature accomplishment; but NAFTA is also the bugaboo of union leaders, grassroots activists and Midwesterners who blame free trade for the factory closings they see in their hometowns.
"The Democratic candidates fought hard to win over those factions of their party, with Obama generally following Hillary Clinton's lead in setting a protectionist tone. In February, as the campaign moved into the Rust Belt, both candidates vowed to invoke a six-month opt-out clause ('as a hammer,' in Obama's words) to pressure Canada and Mexico to make concessions... Now, however, Obama says he doesn't believe in unilaterally reopening NAFTA."
As David Sirota, the author of a terrific new book on populist anger at Washington's trade and economic policies, The Uprising, correctly observes, "Here you have a policy -- NAFTA -- that is among the most unpopular policies of the last generation, according to polls. Here you have a candidate who campaigned against it in the primary. And within weeks of getting the general election, here you have that same candidate running to Corporate America's magazine of record to reassure Wall Street about that same policy. This is precisely what the populist uprising that I describe in my new book is all about -- a backlash to this kind of politics."
The McCain camp is already suggesting his Democratic rival is hypocritical, at best, when it comes to trade policy. The Fortune interview will add fuel to the fire.
If Obama does not change his tune, he's likely to get burned in Ohio, Wisconsin and other states where primary surveys showed that the vast majority of Democratic, Republican and independent voters felt that the radically pro-corporate free trade policies of the Clinton and Bush years had harmed rather than helped America.
John Nichols' new book is The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"
Copyright © 2008 The Nation
28 Comments so far
Show Alltwo words that seem not to go together- "americans" and "demand". hah! we got what we desrved because we got what we (were told) we wanted- free, un regulated and global markets. capitalism- is our dream and our legacy for the world. enjoy it. . .
Don't forget the two most right wing, pro corporate Supreme Court Justices were confirmed by the 2006 Democratic Senate-Alioto and Roberts.
If you don't understand the implication of those terrible confirmation, you should not be voting.
an addendum to my last blog it's not fossil fuels, forward thinking people wish to exploit but renewable energy is the answer for all of us. So the people north of the border who wish to deny us this luxury I say thank you and perhaps we yanks can move forward with some good ole American ingenuity.
to the Canuck who thinks we Americans snooker you please examine some things it's not Nafta that is the problem for us and us includes you but the big bad wolf is the W.T.O. whether we want to except it or not we're both in the same boat. Free trade will be the undoing of everything middle class American or Canadian or Mexican and by the way keep your fossil fuels and let's talk about renewable energy with some good ole American ingenuity or will the one world goverments of the future claim the patents on the energy of the sun too.
NAFTA serves the top 1%: the same people who control Nichols and his handlers at the Nation. They know what is best for all the sheeple marching lock step.
King Henry, I agree wih you. NAFTA could never have been everything to everybody in the present. There are plenty of opportunities for Labor though, in the long scheme.
"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified" —
"Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself,"
Obama, you said you represent change. Sounds like you have exempted yourself from change. Kind of reminds me of Bush, I remember some of his lies. Sorry, I meant, I remember his overheated and amplified rhetoric.
Does it take the good old Irish people to show all, including the British people all the rest of Europe the way forward by their voting against the damn EU treaty which would have put the European damn central bankers in control of the fate all the people of Europe and at the expense of those very people, and by doing so destroy European democracy. I'm very thankful for the Irish people-- from the bottom of my heart!
The European Union won't be worth a damn without the people having their damn say!
The NAFTA debate isn't about Canada vs the USA or Mexico, but about the super rich in the USA, Canada, and Mexico ripping off the working people in all these countries and taking everything from us all that we should have our damn share, as we the working people created this wealth as even Adam Smith even admitted at one point in Wealth of Nations or at least said the rich didn't create the wealth, which is really the same damn thing.
The super rich establishment, not all the super rich, use this divide and rule strategy to keep the rest out of all and from getting our hands on the levers of power in our politics and economy.
Enojada: it's the greedy Americans at the top of the food chain that I'm railing against: the Enron execs who plunder their company, the GM bigshots who can't read a market trend in front of their faces to small cars for instance, and then lose their market share, cut jobs bigtime, and somehow the blame is shifted to offshore companies, or bogeymen in the form of NAFTA who by some curious logic are held to blame for the autoworkewr in Ohio losing his job. IF his employer [GM] had mustered the foresight,like Toyota for example, to cater to consumer demand, that Ohio worker would have been happily at work chrurning out small, ,fuel efficient cars, as an example. Much easier to blame 'out there' - NAFTA, or Chinese factories, or Mexican peasants working for a pittance, than it is to blame executive laziness. Surely you can recognize that country. It's all around us, declining in living standard with each breath we take.
kinghenry -
Do you honestly think the problems in this country are caused by greedy Americans? Greedy Americans who want to be able to handle health care emergencies in their families? Greedy Americans who want to be able to pay the mortgage AND put food on the table at the same time? Greedy Americans whose jobs have been outsourced to countries with low wages and no environmental policies?
I know that you are a mature intellectual, not a childish moron like the rest of us, but I don't recognize the country you've been living in. Sorry.
Here's an article that touches on one of the major cornerstones of North American economic policy - yet within ten seconds' of posting, responses degenerate into partisan drivel that goes nowhere - with the exception of one insightful comment that recognizes how much greedy Americans would be screwed - royally, bigtime - in their energy supplies if NAFTA were revisited. Keep up the yakkety yak - and freeze in the dark. What a pathetic bunch, who either can't read well, or refuse to, or seem incapable of, learning of the processes, issues & implications of this enormously important trade agreement. For comparison, consider for a moment the success of the European Union, on many fronts, before howling to the moon, 'Scrap NAFTA'. The childish morons who refuse to recognize changing economic times, learn new skills, relocate, re-educate, are writing their own misfortune.
This is really no surprise to many of us. We saw it coming a mile away. Obama did the same thing with health care- in '03 single payer "everybody in, nobody out", in '08 subsidized private insurance hardly universal- and he is not getting us out of Iraq.
Folks, it really is time for some "tough love". If the Dems won't give us what we need re health care, foreign policy, trade etc. etc. it really is time to go elsewhere. They have been scaring us with the "awful Rep." for years now and like suckers we fall for it every time. Granted, the Rep. usually is pretty awful but to refuse to demand more, much more, than what the corp. Dem. is willing to give us in exchange for what politicians need even more than money - our vote, is to throw away the only leverage we "little people" have. Do you have any idea how quickly they would adopt a progressive agenda if a guy like Nader did well at the polls? In a heartbeat.
The Dem. and the Rep. have been "spoilers" long enough. They have spoiled our jobs, our health care, our children's lives, not to mention those of people around the globe. How much lower will we have to fall before we get off our knees, take the "kick me" sign off our derrieres, and, in the immortal words of MRS. Reagan, "just say NO"?
Obama has just realized the awful truth. With respect to Canada NAFTA has given access to Canadian oil. 40% of US oil comes from Canada. Canadian manufacturing jobs have disappeared to the US and Mexico. No other country in the world has given away as much as Canada has in a trade treaty, and now Canadians are starting to clamor to get back what they gave away. The US has never respected NAFTA anyway. In the softwood lumber disagreement, the US lost multiple times in various dispute resolution appeals yet ignored every decision. By making a big issue of scrapping NAFTA you are like the cowboy who shoots himself in the foot. You snookered Canada 15 years ago and now the Prime Minister and many Canadians think a better deal is now possible. Obama is now starting to think about the implications of alienating the country that supplies the largest amount of your energy and which is your largest trading partner. You guys make me laugh. Few of you realize how much you have taken from your northern neighbour.
Don't vote for Dennis. Vote Nader.
And Nichols has been highly supportive of Nader's right to be in the debates and McKinney's and Barr's too.
If we do not fight to have five candidates debate in the general election debates in November, we are doing a great disservice to this country. It's the only way we get the real issues back on the table to be seriously discussed.
This caving into the right, and it's not the center, will almost surely guarantee Johnny "Straight Lies" McCain wins. Maybe it's time to vote for Cynthia McKinney, with Barak Obama looking to throw away the presidential contest. I really hate to have to say this, but Obama had better damn get with the program before it's too late, too late for us all, and what's left of democracy in the USA.
We only have ourselves to blame for this mess. Maybe someday the American people will demand the supposed free press will give equal and fair coverage to all candidates. Can we dare say John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich
Vote for whomever represents your ideals and in the meantime:
TAKE IT TO THE STREETS!
If we follow the crumb-path that the Democrat Party has laid out for us, we lose momentum! Some long time peace workers are already losing integrity by refusing to call out Barack Obama for his veer to the right. They're afraid he might lose votes. This has gone too far.
Better to stay clear, stay focussed, and work our butts off to inform and convince the American people that the two-party hold on our democracy is un-acceptable. We will no longer play the game where corporations have all the power, the money, the voice, and control of all the rules, ie, they have it all. I say, don't let them also have your vote.
Obama's no Dennis Kucinich.
I'm still voting for Dennis in November.
ha ha ha ha ha ha O, ba ma ha ha ha
the only people you need to be concerned about are: you ~ the only one who can make your own personal changes to opt out of industrial\electrical life, and them ~ the ones that own and will use the government, unbelievable weaponry, and the judicial\penal system to imprison\torture\kill you or your loved ones when you try...
those with smarmy attitudes who continue exaggerated purchasing must become socially ostracized...consumption must create criticism and contempt, not jealousy and competition...living simply must become the honorable thing to do...the wise and respectable and just thing...the right thing...
I guess one can always try one's representatives...it hasn't worked for me...Sens. Murray and Cantwell won't do anything...
good luck to us all
As Greenwald points out in his piece today: "But it's critical to keep in mind that Obama is a politician and, like all people, is plagued by significant imperfections. He has largely entrenched himself in, and is dependent upon, the power structure he says he wants to undermine."
IOW, he's on the paymasters' payroll but has a solid team of "populist" propagandists. He's been told he can say whatever bullshit he wants, as long as he "governs" as he's told.
Health care for all, right champ? Tax the super-rich and oil companies! Green is good! Blah blah blah - now watch the shell and pick which cup it's under... nope, not that one, try again... nope, try again... nope...
My husband and I lost our jobs due to NAFTA. We worked at Mattel. Last Mattel in USA. Obama nor McCain will never no anything with NAFTA! JERKS
THEY TOOK OUR JOBS!!!
Observe the process: the slightly-populist-talking Democrat sells out to big-money interests.
Gee, who'd ever have predicted it.
You right. NAFTA isn't everything to everybody. It's only everything to Canada, the USA, and Mexico by being everything for the richest one to five per cent and everything against the other 95 to 99 per cent who actually created the wealth in the first place, and it's also part of the super rich class war on the rest in those three countries.
That's certainly true, Huck. Nichols always lines up with the Democrats, when push comes to shove, just like most of the people at 'The Nation.' He's willing to be critical of the Dems for a while, perhaps to win a few credibility points. But when it's money time & the campaign goes into the home stretch, he'll do what obedient Democrats always do.
How many voters like NAFTA enough to vote FOR Obama because of it? Obama is making a terrible mistake.
Obama is clearly shifting ground and moving to the Center for the general election. But given his cozyness with corporate CEO and their agenda my question is why negatively critque Obama and then cast a vote on his behalf like Nichols will do? The frigging hypocracy gets deeper with each status quo article this Cat puts out for the sheeple.