Posted on 05/08/2008 5:03:01 PM PDT by The_Republican
House Democrats recently inflicted a near-mortal blow to free trade. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, using her considerable procedural power, delayed indefinitely an up-or-down congressional vote on approving the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. True, scuttling this particular deal will neither crush the international trading system nor immediately inaugurate a new era of protectionist policies. Blocking a trade agreement with Colombia is not the 21st-century version of the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill.
But the absence of more full-throated public support and effective response from free-trade advocates underscores a broader and more fundamental weakness in the way open-market proponents participate in the electoral process and their approach to the new world of lobbying. Both need to change or free trade will continue its steep decline in public and legislative support.
Opponents of open markets have been gaining ground for the past decade, but their efforts fully blossomed in 2006 when union and environmental activists invested heavily in congressional campaigns of Democrats. free-trade advocates failed to match these efforts, and Mrs. Pelosi's bold procedural step reminds us that elections matter. Killing this free-trade agreement is a consequence flowing directly from the new Democratic majority. Unions and environmental interests did not hedge their bets. They unabashedly supported Democrats — and now enjoy the spoils of political victory.
Free-trade supporters take a different approach. Loath to appear overtly "political," they spread their financial contributions around to both sides of the aisle and sit on the sidelines of most big electoral fights, hoping for the best and seemingly engaged in asymmetrical warfare. Several Democratic lawmakers with a history of support for free trade voted with Mrs. Pelosi, winning plaudits from unions and environmental lobbyists, and feeling no political repercussions from open-market advocates.
Congressional policy decisions also follow the larger arch of public opinion.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
If free trade had produced all those promised high paying good jobs, it would get complete approval. Obviously it didn’t, at least not in this country.
That’s what the Democrats claim, for sure.
It's not obvious to me; what data do you have that free trade has not produced high paying jobs. I'm curious because my wife, along with all her co-workers, has a good job that is completely dependent on free trade.
OK you’re one. Voter data will decide in November how they did.
Perhaps they’ll also decide if we have global warming; after all it was algore that taught us it’s not the data, its the consensus - stupid.
I wonder how this article is received in Michigan and Ohio.
Craig Roberts asserts that what has been occurring isn’t free trade but instead is cross border wage arbitrage. And that doesn’t confer the benefits of free trade.
I keep hoping free traitin’ will end...
I can be patient.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.