A Letter on free trade and the consequences of this election
This was an e-mail I wrote to a prominent international relations Professor who also runs a popular blog. Unfortunately, he agrees with my points but cares more about Congressional oversight.
Given your vast knowledge of international and domestic politics, I am shocked that you have not blogged on the possible repercussions on future free trade agreements as a result of this election. In this election, in the battleground states (Rhode Island, even Ohio, Montana, Missouri, and Virginia) the Republican incumbent in each state has a very good/ excellent record on free trade, while the Democratic challenger is advocating protectionist policies. Senator DeWine in Ohio is likely to lose in part because of his past support of trade agreements. Unfortunately in these states and in general, free trade has almost no constituency while the anti-trade movement has a large number of volunteers. Even though the stock market overall benefits from trade agreements, investors (especially hedge funds) can make money in a bull or bear market and are not going to waste political capital to lobby or vote based on this issue.
Why are academics like yourself (who along with journalists with economic backgrounds are typically the biggest proponents of free trade and can influence public opinion) not doing anything to help these incumbents or at least attack the Democratic party’s recent record and rhetoric on trade? Instead, you and others like Tom Friedman act like there is some kind of moral equivalence in the President’s temporary relatively modest and temporary tariffs in Pennsylvania and in the almost the entire Democratic Caucus's opposition to almost all trade policies. While DLC politicians used to be overwhelmingly in favor of free trade, that has changed with leaders of the DLC like Senators Clinton and Bayh and Congressman like Artur Davis and Rahm Emanuel opposing CAFTA and Bayh's recent harsh rhetoric on trade issues. The hypocrisy is also overwhelming when you have politicians like Ned Lamont whose wife's venture capital fund lists one of their specialties as outsourcing, denouncing trade agreements.
There is a difference between supporting almost all trade agreements and distancing yourself from "outsourcing is good" rhetoric which is political suicide and those who vote against any trade agreement. At this rate, there are going to be few politicians of any party promoting free trade. Why would Republicans or politicians of any stripe want to support these agreements if they are getting little credit and much condemnation for doing so?
You have a chance to make a difference and influence people on this issue, hopefully you will do so.
Given your vast knowledge of international and domestic politics, I am shocked that you have not blogged on the possible repercussions on future free trade agreements as a result of this election. In this election, in the battleground states (Rhode Island, even Ohio, Montana, Missouri, and Virginia) the Republican incumbent in each state has a very good/ excellent record on free trade, while the Democratic challenger is advocating protectionist policies. Senator DeWine in Ohio is likely to lose in part because of his past support of trade agreements. Unfortunately in these states and in general, free trade has almost no constituency while the anti-trade movement has a large number of volunteers. Even though the stock market overall benefits from trade agreements, investors (especially hedge funds) can make money in a bull or bear market and are not going to waste political capital to lobby or vote based on this issue.
Why are academics like yourself (who along with journalists with economic backgrounds are typically the biggest proponents of free trade and can influence public opinion) not doing anything to help these incumbents or at least attack the Democratic party’s recent record and rhetoric on trade? Instead, you and others like Tom Friedman act like there is some kind of moral equivalence in the President’s temporary relatively modest and temporary tariffs in Pennsylvania and in the almost the entire Democratic Caucus's opposition to almost all trade policies. While DLC politicians used to be overwhelmingly in favor of free trade, that has changed with leaders of the DLC like Senators Clinton and Bayh and Congressman like Artur Davis and Rahm Emanuel opposing CAFTA and Bayh's recent harsh rhetoric on trade issues. The hypocrisy is also overwhelming when you have politicians like Ned Lamont whose wife's venture capital fund lists one of their specialties as outsourcing, denouncing trade agreements.
There is a difference between supporting almost all trade agreements and distancing yourself from "outsourcing is good" rhetoric which is political suicide and those who vote against any trade agreement. At this rate, there are going to be few politicians of any party promoting free trade. Why would Republicans or politicians of any stripe want to support these agreements if they are getting little credit and much condemnation for doing so?
You have a chance to make a difference and influence people on this issue, hopefully you will do so.
posted by The partisan moderate at 10:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home