The Return of the NAFTA Election Cycle?

http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2009/12/the-return-of-the-nafta-election-cycle.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eyesontrade+(Eyes+on+Trade)

The Return of the NAFTA Election Cycle?

(Disclaimer: Public Citizen has no preference among the candidates.)

As we throw out the old calendar and enter an election year, Democratic and Republican party leaders are busy figuring out their electoral strategies. Various Democratic strategists, for their part, are running through the familiar arguments about appealing to independent voters versus rallying the base. Arguing for a rally-the-base approach, Democratic strategist Steve Rosenthal reminds us that voters punished the members of Congress who pushed though a bad trade pact one fateful election cycle:

In 1994, the year Republicans swept to power in the House and Senate, union members were demoralized and stayed home because the Clinton administration had fought vigorously to pass NAFTA and backed down on health care reform.

Economist Paul Krugman also argues this NAFTA point while discussing the Republican strategy: “The idea that NAFTA was a big plus for Clinton, coming from Rahm Emanuel of all people, is just too bone-headed for words.”

Fortunately for everyone involved, the choice between fair trade and NAFTA-style agreements is not a choice among appealing to liberal, conservative, or moderate voters. Polls have demonstrated that voters of all stripes are fed up with the NAFTA model, particularly in swing states. Fair trade candidates elected in 2008 now have the seats in Congress to prove it, which makes clear that support of the NAFTA model is a losing strategy, while supporting the TRADE Act might be a way to win.

country to be self-sufficient. We would need to import oil for a while, while we change our infrastructure to green technologies.

If we can make it, we don't need to import it. That will put Americans back to work.

If you need foreign, then pay through the nose for it.

Shipping that crap from China burns a shitload of fuel. Then you have to put it on trains and trucks to get to all the stores. It's a waste. Not only do we need to make as much as we can in this country, but we need to focus on getting our needs met as locally as possible.

Without it, there soon won't be any money left for the masses to even shop at walmart with. Foriegn goods should be more expensive then native goods.

"You are an isolationist, racist, stupid, delusional,..."

I get tired of arguing with the corporatists, because it's the same charade each time they start.

You can't very well expect people to openly admit that they are perfectly happy to profit from the murder, misery, and deprivation of others.

"Free trade = peace and prosperity."

"What do you have against the poor brown foreign people having jobs."

"Smoot-Hawley and protectionism caused The Great Depression." (In reality, it had maybe a 1-2% effect)

worked well. Yes, we should have trade. But it should not be so free that it shuts down our manufacturing and the diversity of our economy. Our economy is so one-sided that we have become dependent on other countries. Ask any addict. Once you are dependent on something, it governs you, you have to work very hard to get to the place where you govern yourself again.

Just last weekend, I was talking to someone who is going into a rehab center for a long time. We are addicted to cheap, foreign junk. We need to break the habit. It is destroying us. And it is also destroying our relationships with the very countries that enable our bad habits.

Independent stance and sip the party Kool-Aid.