trade...

[thebin]

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2552-2004Apr10.html

Any educated adult ought to be split between being ashamed and embarassed to be against free trade and for even modestly protectionist policies. But pandering to protectionist instincts in those voters who have not the slightest understanding of macroeconomics ( in what is an open and shut case) or whose self-interest over-rides (unions) is an electoral temptation to be sure that snares pols of both stripes. For all W's faults with his decidedly poor record in regard to protectionism, the Democratic party is still the one in the vanguard of neo-protectionism, and this is particularly hypcritical given other longstanding claims of altruism they make with regard to US responsability for world poverty solutions.

[nychoya3]

Well, we agree on one thing: Free trade is good. But the politics of free trade are bad. No one, and I mean no one, has figured out how to sell trade to the American people, as opposed to shoving it down their throats. We have to make the case that trade CREATES jobs in the long run, and that it has numerous ancillary benefits like world peace, etc.

Maybe Krauthammer didn't notice because he was too busy being a hack, but when Mankiw said nice things about outsourcing, the outcry came from both sides of the aisle.

What's the point of bashing unions (particularly manufacturing unions) for backing protectionism? These guys are trying to protect their livelyhoods which are genuinely at risk. It's incumbent on free traders to articulate what we're going to do for these folks.

Not clear why Dems are the vanguard of protectionism (though I like the phrase.) Clinton was far more consistently interested in trade than Bush, and Kerry's economic team is substantially the same as Bill's. These guys are neo-libs to the core. I'd list the econ people in the Bush admin, but none of them have any power, so why bother?

Ag subsidies, to pick the most obvious and painful example, are not a left or right thing. They are a farmer v. non-farmer thing. The non-farmers should win, but the nuances of the political process mean things don't always work that way.

[thebin]

What is it exactly you mean when you call someone a hack? (Not rhetorical.) Krauthhamer is one of the most sincere and intelligent members of the media in this nation. I don't always agree with Thomas Friedman, but I would never call him a hack. What do you mean by this term?

I can't believe I have to seriously explain why the Dems are the party of protectionism. Becuase they are. Clinton and the DLC Dems absolutely co-opted a couple of Republican principles- free trade among them- ask any hard core lefty to confirm that if you don't believe me. In fact, I believe Clinton converted to the policy necessity of NAFTA while in office, convinced by the experts, in contradiction of his Democratic boilerplate pro-union, anti-NAFTA stance during the his campaign. I have no problem with him changing his mind there- glad he did, but let's be honest that it was a Republican idea he converted to and he ticked off many of the liberals in the party base who are now in the ascendancy as the DLC guys are nowhere to be found. The pro-NAFTA DLC Dems have been MIA since the orgy of Bush-hating known as the Democratic primaries came to the fore. In fact, I think Lieberman may have been the only one who wasn't railing against NAFTA. Yep- NAFTA, which Kerry has said he may regret having been for now that he thinks about it. That is embarrassing. Look, when you are the party of organized labor, you can't honestly object to your party being labled the protectionist party when the boomerang comes around. How can you deny that the Dems are the protectionist party of the two (it is relative of course) and at the same time defend the unions whose interest in protectionism is the sole reason they almost always back Dems?

I am a libertarian in some ways. (although true libertarians are a bit nutso.) So I don't care for much of the Christian right- but I wouldn't dare pretend that between the two parties, the Gop was NOT the party of the religious right. You may be for free trade, but the Dem party, of the two, is CLEARLY the one that tends more towards protectionism, significantly if you were watching the primary debates, as a matter of principle. IOt is neither a close call, nor is it contestable. When Bush supports protectionist policy, it is in contravention of his principles. (And he derserves to catch hell for that, which I have and will give him again.)

[nychoya3]

Won't argue the merits of Krauthammer with you. I grant that he has a prodigious IQ and occassionally great insight. I think he's a nasty, vitriolic sorta guy. But that's irrelevant.

"Because they are." That's more or less your argument. Oh, and the GOP used to speak the language of free trade, but then they decided it was more important to win over the culturally conservative, blue-collar workers in various democratic bastions like Ohio and Michigan.

I don't see the point in arguing that free trade is a democratic or republican issue. It's neither. It's a free trader issue. Republicans control every branch of the government - why can't we get lowered ag subsidies, or not put in place steel tarriffs? Because it's not an issue that you can easily give to one party.

Read up on the NAFTA debate. Clinton took a sizable political hit and expended a bunch of political capital with unions to push GATT and NAFTA, which were both Bush I initiatives. This was 1994, remember, so it wasn't exactly the time to be alienating the base. He did it out of principle and because the econ people told him it was the right thing to do. Imagine that! Many on the left will never forgive him for that or welfare reform.

Was Clinton the greatest trade president ever? No. He didn't push forward as he should have with agricultural subsidy reforms and a number of other issues. But he did take a stand on a prominent issue, to his political detriment, which is more than anyone can say for Bush.

Kerry's plan on outsourcing came out. The first plank wasn't a massive tarriff or punitive taxes - it was a freakin' corporate tax cut! That should give you a sense of who's driving the Kerry economic team. Rubin, Summers and their ilk are just as rabid free traders as anyone on the republican side, except they couldn't be overruled by Karl Rove, as you have in the Bush admin. You're right that dems have to say the right things during primary season to satisfy the unions.

If you and Krauthammer really buy into the gospel of free trade, I suggest you spend less time worrying about "whose idea it is" and more time worrying about building bi-partisan coalitions and developing a message to push the agenda forward. If you think a vote for dubya is a vote for open borders and the gospel of comparative advantage, well, you haven't been paying very close attention for the past few years.

I'll wager that a Kerry administration is more apt to support free trade than Bush, and I base that on Bush's record, Kerry's voting record in the Senate, and the econ people who are advising JFK.

[thebin]

This is a curious turn of events. Much like Clinton himself, you have co-opted my argument and tried to make it your own. Your entire line about how Clinton changed his mind and Editeded off the Dem base by supporting NAFTA comes directly from my argument. When I say that the Democrats are the protectionist party "because they are" perhaps I should have added that I do in so far as I take them at their word. Being anti-Nafta was always an element of the extreme fringe of the GOP (Buchanan) but conversly was at the very core of the Democratic party both pre and post Clinton. I thought it was gone forever too...but, did you happen to catch any of those debates? Most notably during the democratic primaries, where amazingly Kerry stooped low enough to say he would consider not voting for NAFTA in retrosepct.

[nychoya3]

pandering is not policy. The forward looking policies that Kerry has thus far proposed do not appear protectionist. I wish that dems didn't have to cowtow to every union demand (though I'm by no means anti-labor), but lip service is one thing and policy is another. I think the concrete policy that Kerry articulated so far, his voting record in the senate, and the team of people advising him are better indications of his true beliefs than something he said while fending off attacks from the resolutely protectionist wing of the party.

Again, I don't think dems are the free trade party. I just don't think republicans are either. If Krauthammer were serious about moving forward on the free trade agenda, he'd take time off from bashing dems and unions and help articulate the very convincing substantive case for trade.

Did you just compare me to Clinton? Thank you. ;D

[nychoya3]

Alan Murray agrees with me about the econ team that Kerry is assembling. These are sensible people who care about policy and who will shape Kerry's administration. This is the stuff to pay attention to - not the panders of the campaign trail. Bush may have said the right things on deficits or trade along the way, but he hasn't followed through. Ever.

online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108180559479580628,00.html?mod=COLUMN