C
Clay
Guest
April 8, 2008 4:00 AM
It happens when you believe one thing and say another.
By Byron York
What were the odds that a top Obama adviser, and then the top Clinton
adviser, would find themselves in trouble with their respective
campaigns over the issue of trade?
Pretty good, actually. Next to race, trade has become the most
explosive issue in the Democratic presidential contest. And especially
at a time when Hillary Clinton is trying to build on her win in Ohio
with a last-chance victory in Pennsylvania.
It's no accident that Austan Goolsbee, the top Obama adviser who told
Canadian officials not to worry about Obama's anti-NAFTA posturing,
became an issue during the campaign in economically-troubled Ohio. And
it's no accident that Mark Penn, the top Clinton strategist who has
been demoted over his private-business promotion of the Colombia Free
Trade Agreement, has found himself in hot water in the midst of
campaigning in Pennsylvania.
The two controversies point up one central fact: Many staffers and
surrogates, in both campaigns, simply don't believe what Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama are saying about NAFTA, and free trade in
general, on the campaign trail. But they can't say so. "A lot of them
are free traders, but during the Democratic primaries they stay in the
closet," one Democratic strategist who is not affiliated with either
campaign told me Monday. "More the Clinton campaign than the Obama
campaign, but probably both."
When I asked Will Marshall, a key figure in the centrist New Democrat
movement and head of the Progressive Policy Institute, what was going
on, he seemed genuinely dismayed. "There has been a kind of willing
suspension of rationality when it comes to the trade debate," Marshall
told me. "Apparently, the rule is that in the primaries, facts and
evidence don't matter, so bashing trade becomes a way of validating
the emotions of people who feel stressed by global competition, and
the facts get trampled underfoot in the process."
But are serious figures in the Clinton and Obama campaigns saying
things about trade that they simply don't believe? "I can't say that,"
Marshall says. "But it seems unlikely that either a President Obama or
a President Clinton would waste their political capital in their first
100 days trying to reopen a 15-year-old trade agreement with Mexico
and Canada. I think it's implausible that the next administration is
going to try to renegotiate NAFTA. So let people draw their own
conclusions."
The reasons for the campaigns' dissimulations/lies/exaggerations are
pretty clear. In Ohio, exit pollsters asked Democratic primary voters
whether U.S. trade with other countries creates jobs or loses jobs.
Eighty percent of Democratic voters said it loses jobs, while ten
percent said it creates jobs and six percent said it had no effect.
The Pennsylvania exit polls, after the April 22 primary, will probably
show similar results.
So the candidates keep bashing free trade. At the Democratic debate in
Cleveland, Ohio, Clinton and Obama seemed locked in a contest to see
who could hate NAFTA more. Now, with Pennsylvania approaching, they're
staying tough. "I am disappointed that President Bush has decided to
send the Colombia Free Trade Agreement to Congress," Clinton said in a
statement yesterday. "The United States should be pursuing trade
agreements that promote human rights and worker rights, not overlook
egregious abuses."
"I think the president is absolutely wrong on this," Obama said of the
Colombia agreement a few days ago. "You've got a government that is
under a cloud of potentially having supporter violence against unions,
against labor, against opposition."
All that is no doubt playing well in Pennsylvania. But what about the
general election? Democrats downplay any concerns. "The truth is, this
is like a family feud, the family being the Democratic party," the
unaffiliated strategist told me. "It has no impact on general election
voters." From Will Marshall: "I doubt that Republicans can exploit it.
But one hopes there will be a discussion of what government can
actually do to raise the floor of security beneath American workers."
Republicans see things differently. Why can't John McCain continue to
say, as he has throughout the primary campaign, that NAFTA is
something that has brought more products at lower prices to millions
and millions of Americans, and that Democrats want to take that away?
Wouldn't that be an effective campaign appeal in most of America? It
undoubtedly would. And -- added advantage -- McCain believes what he
says. Which will give him a big edge over his Democratic opponent.
----------------
-C-
It happens when you believe one thing and say another.
By Byron York
What were the odds that a top Obama adviser, and then the top Clinton
adviser, would find themselves in trouble with their respective
campaigns over the issue of trade?
Pretty good, actually. Next to race, trade has become the most
explosive issue in the Democratic presidential contest. And especially
at a time when Hillary Clinton is trying to build on her win in Ohio
with a last-chance victory in Pennsylvania.
It's no accident that Austan Goolsbee, the top Obama adviser who told
Canadian officials not to worry about Obama's anti-NAFTA posturing,
became an issue during the campaign in economically-troubled Ohio. And
it's no accident that Mark Penn, the top Clinton strategist who has
been demoted over his private-business promotion of the Colombia Free
Trade Agreement, has found himself in hot water in the midst of
campaigning in Pennsylvania.
The two controversies point up one central fact: Many staffers and
surrogates, in both campaigns, simply don't believe what Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama are saying about NAFTA, and free trade in
general, on the campaign trail. But they can't say so. "A lot of them
are free traders, but during the Democratic primaries they stay in the
closet," one Democratic strategist who is not affiliated with either
campaign told me Monday. "More the Clinton campaign than the Obama
campaign, but probably both."
When I asked Will Marshall, a key figure in the centrist New Democrat
movement and head of the Progressive Policy Institute, what was going
on, he seemed genuinely dismayed. "There has been a kind of willing
suspension of rationality when it comes to the trade debate," Marshall
told me. "Apparently, the rule is that in the primaries, facts and
evidence don't matter, so bashing trade becomes a way of validating
the emotions of people who feel stressed by global competition, and
the facts get trampled underfoot in the process."
But are serious figures in the Clinton and Obama campaigns saying
things about trade that they simply don't believe? "I can't say that,"
Marshall says. "But it seems unlikely that either a President Obama or
a President Clinton would waste their political capital in their first
100 days trying to reopen a 15-year-old trade agreement with Mexico
and Canada. I think it's implausible that the next administration is
going to try to renegotiate NAFTA. So let people draw their own
conclusions."
The reasons for the campaigns' dissimulations/lies/exaggerations are
pretty clear. In Ohio, exit pollsters asked Democratic primary voters
whether U.S. trade with other countries creates jobs or loses jobs.
Eighty percent of Democratic voters said it loses jobs, while ten
percent said it creates jobs and six percent said it had no effect.
The Pennsylvania exit polls, after the April 22 primary, will probably
show similar results.
So the candidates keep bashing free trade. At the Democratic debate in
Cleveland, Ohio, Clinton and Obama seemed locked in a contest to see
who could hate NAFTA more. Now, with Pennsylvania approaching, they're
staying tough. "I am disappointed that President Bush has decided to
send the Colombia Free Trade Agreement to Congress," Clinton said in a
statement yesterday. "The United States should be pursuing trade
agreements that promote human rights and worker rights, not overlook
egregious abuses."
"I think the president is absolutely wrong on this," Obama said of the
Colombia agreement a few days ago. "You've got a government that is
under a cloud of potentially having supporter violence against unions,
against labor, against opposition."
All that is no doubt playing well in Pennsylvania. But what about the
general election? Democrats downplay any concerns. "The truth is, this
is like a family feud, the family being the Democratic party," the
unaffiliated strategist told me. "It has no impact on general election
voters." From Will Marshall: "I doubt that Republicans can exploit it.
But one hopes there will be a discussion of what government can
actually do to raise the floor of security beneath American workers."
Republicans see things differently. Why can't John McCain continue to
say, as he has throughout the primary campaign, that NAFTA is
something that has brought more products at lower prices to millions
and millions of Americans, and that Democrats want to take that away?
Wouldn't that be an effective campaign appeal in most of America? It
undoubtedly would. And -- added advantage -- McCain believes what he
says. Which will give him a big edge over his Democratic opponent.
----------------
-C-