The Progressive Case For Free Trade
BY SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN
Posted 9/12/2008
investors.com.
As recently as eight years ago, when the Clinton-Gore administration ended, a bipartisan consensus existed among Democrats and Republicans in favor of free trade, which leaders of both parties recognized was in America's economic interest.
Now, unfortunately, the consensus has unraveled, with most Democrats in Congress opposing key free trade agreements with some of our closest allies and Sen. Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, threatening anti-trade policies if elected.
This reversal is very disappointing for many reasons, not least because it is Democratic progressives who should be the strongest champions of free trade. There is a reason that Democratic presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to Bill Clinton have been committed free traders — they understood that free trade advances precisely those goals that have historically mattered most to Democrats, both at home and abroad.
Domestically, free trade today is caricatured by the anti-trade left as sending companies overseas and hurting American workers. But this caricature is deeply flawed. In fact, it is middle- and lower-income American workers and families who are among free trade's greatest beneficiaries.
To begin with, trade supports millions of jobs in America. All told, 25% of jobs in the U.S. today are linked to world trade. And in the current economic downturn, exports are one of our few growth sectors. Demand for American exports is at the highest level ever, total exports are up 7% in the first six months of the year, and our exports to China are up 20% from a year ago.
Free trade also means that ordinary Americans pay lower prices for consumer goods. Anti-trade policies, by contrast, translate to higher prices from the grocery store to the shopping mall — an indirect tax increase that inflicts the greatest harm on those who have the least money to spend.
While most people gain from trade, some workers are losing their jobs as our economy changes and develops. It is our responsibility to help them. We can do that by retraining those left unemployed, and helping businesses create new jobs for them — by creating the right economic incentives.
As President Clinton used to point out, 96% of the world's population lives outside the United States, and there is only so much we can make and sell to the 4% who live here. Our economic well-being depends on reaching the other 96%, and that means reducing foreign tariffs so we can sell more American-made goods around the world.
Consider the Free Trade Agreement with Colombia, now blocked by Democrats in the House. Though opponents of the agreement often claim to do so in the name of American workers, the fact is, most Colombian goods already enter the U.S. duty-free.
The trade agreement would give Americans equal access to the Colombian market. At the moment, our companies are at a disadvantage. According to the Commerce Department, U.S. exports face an estimated $1.9 million in tariffs each day, or $693 million each year, because of the absence of two-way free trade with Colombia.
The progressive case for free trade, however, is not just about advancing our own economic self-interest. Free trade also advances a cause that progressives have historically cared passionately about: the fight against global poverty.
Forty years ago, countries in Asia like South Korea and Singapore were as impoverished as their counterparts in sub-Saharan Africa. Today, hundreds of millions of people in Asia enjoy middle class prosperity, with hundreds of millions more soon following in their path. This is one of the great success stories of human history — and it was made possible by trade.
Trade is also beginning to help Africa's development. Since its enactment eight years ago, the African Growth and Opportunity Act has helped expand U.S. trade and investment with sub-Saharan Africa. In 2007, U.S. exports to sub-Saharan Africa ($14.4 billion) were more than double the 2001 level, and U.S. imports ($51 billion) were more than triple the 2001 level. This increase in trade in turn is helping to reinforce Africa's efforts at economic and political reform.
Free trade also decreases the threat of war. From the Taiwan Strait to the Middle East, we have seen how trade can reduce tensions between rivals and create economic incentives for countries to resolve their differences peacefully.
For nearly 60 years, Democrats understood and advanced all of these arguments in favor of free trade. It was FDR who won authority from Congress to negotiate free trade agreements with other countries, and it was John F. Kennedy who pushed through ambitious legislation that expanded the president's authority to negotiate lower tariffs.
President Clinton, putting free trade at the heart of his successful economic program, signed NAFTA, completed the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, and helped create the World Trade Organization.
Sadly, today's Democratic Party, including Sen. Obama, has largely turned its back on this proud legacy. Sen. Obama, for instance, voted against the Central America Free Trade Agreement, has threatened to renegotiate NAFTA — calling it a "bad deal" — and opposes pending free-trade agreements with South Korea and Colombia.
This anti-trade posture is ironic, given Sen. Obama's pledge to restore America's reputation around the world. In fact, free trade is the embodiment of international cooperation. By pledging to backtrack on longstanding agreements, throw up protectionist barriers, and abandon our closest allies, Sen. Obama has charted a course that will undermine our global leadership and risk putting our country into a deep recession.
America needs a president who — like FDR, Truman and Clinton — will stand up to self-protecting special interests and champion free trade. A great irony this year is that the presidential candidate who best represents the progressive Democratic legacy of free trade is not a Democrat at all — but the Republican nominee: John McCain.
Lieberman, a former Democrat turned independent, is the junior senator from Connecticut |
