More On The PPA
That’s the Protectionist Party of America, formerly known as the Democratic Party. From the Washington Post editorial board (titled Drop Dead, Columbia):
THE YEAR 2008 may enter history as the time when the Democratic Party lost its way on trade. Already, the party’s presidential candidates have engaged in an unseemly contest to adopt the most protectionist posture, suggesting that, if elected, they might pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Yesterday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared her intention to change the procedural rules governing the proposed trade promotion agreement with Colombia. President Bush submitted the pact to Congress on Tuesday for a vote within the next 90 legislative days, as required by the “fast-track” authority under which the U.S. negotiated the deal with Colombia. Ms. Pelosi says she’ll ask the House to undo that rule.
The likely result is no vote on the agreement this year. Ms. Pelosi denies that her intent is to kill the bill, insisting yesterday that Congress simply needs more time to consider it “in light of the economic uncertainty in our country.” She claimed that she feared that, “if brought to the floor immediately, [the pact] would lose. And what message would that send?” But Ms. Pelosi’s decision-making process also included a fair component of pure Washington pique: She accused Mr. Bush of “usurp[ing] the discretion of the speaker of the House” to schedule legislation.
That political turf-staking, and the Democrats’ decreasingly credible claims of a death-squad campaign against Colombia’s trade unionists, constitutes all that’s left of the case against the agreement. Economically, it should be a no-brainer – especially at a time of rising U.S. joblessness. At the moment, Colombian exports to the United States already enjoy preferences. The trade agreement would make those permanent, but it would also give U.S. firms free access to Colombia for the first time, thus creating U.S. jobs. Politically, too, the agreement is in the American interest, as a reward to a friendly, democratic government that has made tremendous strides on human rights, despite harassment from Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez.
From the Wall Street Journal:
The Democratic Party’s protectionist make-over was completed yesterday, when Nancy Pelosi decided to kill the Colombia free trade agreement. Her objections had nothing to do with the evidence and everything to do with politics, but this was an act of particular bad faith. It will damage the economic and security interests of the U.S. while trashing our best ally in Latin America.
The Colombia trade pact was signed in 2006 and renegotiated last year to accommodate Democratic demands for tougher labor and environmental standards. Even after more than 250 consultations with Democrats, and further concessions, including promises to spend more on domestic unemployment insurance, the deal remained stalled in Congress. Apparently the problem was that Democrats kept getting their way.
So on Monday, President Bush submitted the bill to Congress over liberal protests, which, under a bargain between Congress and the White House for trade promotion authority, mandated an up-or-down vote within 90 days. Today Ms. Pelosi will make an ex post facto change to House rules to avoid the required vote, withdrawing from the timetable and thus relegating the Colombia deal to a perhaps permanent limbo.
Democrats say it would have failed anyway, but at least a vote during the next three months would have forced them to show the courage of their protectionist convictions. Instead, they chose to shelve the bill in an election year while paying off organized labor and other antitrade yahoos. The gambit is especially humiliating for Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, a free-trader who has been trying to strike a deal with the Administration but keeps getting rolled by Ms. Pelosi.
For good measure, the double-cross dismantles the only process that allows any Administration to conduct good-faith negotiations with foreign nations. No one is going to take the U.S. at its word if Congress is going to change the rules when it has second thoughts and renege.
There is no excuse – none – for a major political party in the world’s economic powerhouse to get by with promoting blatant protectionism. If the Democrats do, it will be a testament to the growing ignorance of Americans regarding economic affairs. What makes this latest protectionist outburst so tragic is that it comes at the most inopportune time, when we are facing a world increasingly wary of putting their money in dollar-backed investments.
Smart investors worldwide are moving into the Euro zone in the face of a falling dollar and a Fed that has lost its credibility compared to the ECB regarding inflation – and the trend will accelerate now, with the most likely outcome of Election 2008 being a bigger Democratic majority and increasing protectionism…
They wouldn’t be doing it if it weren’t popular and if they thought doing so would hurt their chances in the next election. We could blame the American electorate for being dumber than a box of door knobs on the topic of economics (micro, macro, and international), but I think, clearly, the real culprit is GWB. January ‘09 cannot get here fast enough.
Soooo…. it is now Bush’s fault that Democrats are saying stupid things.
There is clearly no limit to what he can do.
Thanks for clearing that up for me TMS
I would have said more on that but my tongue was too deeply pressed into my cheek.
While we’re renaming the parties, can we take my suggestion and rename the GOP the Viking Party? Rape, kill, pillage, and burn… and tax cuts for the rich.
Also, where’s your outrage about Republican opposition to immigration? The idea that “they’re takin’ our jarbs” is the EXACT SAME thing that motivates the protectionist impulses of the left. These are two sides of the same coin, and both parties insist on peddling ignorance and xenophobia.
Couldn’t agree more that protectionist trade policy and seal the borders immigration policy are two sides of the same coin – especially for those ill-informed on the details of each issue. To be fair, hyper-nationalism and xenophobia are easily explained as a result of the attacks of 9/11.
But it doesn’t have to be this way, right? Obama and McCain both represent the potential for a real change of rhetoric. Obama sort of personifies internationalism and globalism, while McCain is a guy who has long staked out a position as a sensible immigration reformer. That they are both choosing to ignore their better angels in return for political gain is pretty dispiriting. On the other hand, I guess they wouldn’t be where they are right now if they hadn’t done precisely this set of things. So that’s dispiriting too.
Not to get too crunchy about this, but what you are talking about is real leadership, not the superficial variety that often gets the play in the media and among the populace.
Taking the country in the direction it wants to go is not leadership. Leadership is taking the country in the direction it needs to go. The former is a form of pandering, the latter is very difficult and rare. Obama is praised for his leadership ability, McCain for being Mr. Straight-Talk. I find both unremarkable in the sense that they, so far, act like run-of-the-mill politicians.
I am confused. I thought that the coming Democratic presidency would repair our tattered relations around the world.
Screwing Columbia and opting out of NAFTA seems to contradict that theme.
Oh, come now. A Democrat is no more going to opt of NAFTA than John McCain actually hates war. Everyone says things they don’t mean. I agree with TMS that that’s a woeful state of affairs, but we don’t have to pretend undue credulity.
Ryan,
You are so right about McCain. Being tortured for four years in a POW camp would make anyone love war.
I mean, he was a fighter pilot. Darn warmonger!
Ryan, you say a Democrat would not opt out of NAFTA, that it’s just rhetoric, and yet Nancy Pelosi just killed the Colombian Free Trade Agreement for no good reason.
Sorry, the evidence is that the Democrats will at least TRY to opt out of NAFTA, given the events of the last few days, if given a good opportunity…
Furthermore, the fact that the Colombian agreement contains just the kind of sops to labor and environmentalists that the NAFTA opponents CLAIM they want to insert into the agreement shows that this is just total crap – the real goal is to revoke NAFTA completely and climb under a protectionist shell. We’ll just pretend the world doesn’t exist! Yay!…
obama is just a black racist sorry thats what i think and he will run us in the ground with new taxs and he does not have a plan of his own
Another editorial in the Times today which says that if you want to help American workers, then pass the Colombian trade pact.
Also the lead editorial in this week’s Economist – concerning how the American economic slowdown will play out (lengthy but shallow, in their view) and how it will affect other economies (not as bad as feared) — raises the possibility that recession in the US will embolden protectionist voices, not only regarding Colombia but also for the next Doha round.
“the real goal is to revoke NAFTA completely and climb under a protectionist shell”
And then what? The problem with this particular conspiracy theory is it doesn’t really make any sense. Democrats are using trade fears to pry out other political victories. I think it’s unfortunate but I’m not crazy. Pelosi is stalling the Colombia trade pact so she can make the Republicans look bad for not including other things that Americans want done. She’s not actually opposed to the Colombia bill any more than I am, and I have seen precious little evidence that she is as “protectionist” as you insist on claiming.
Bob: Since John McCain was involved in so much horrible war and was tortured himself, you’d think he’d been less ecstatic about starting so many wars and letting the President torture folks. Apparently not.