Often embattled in both lay and elite opinion, free trade is in danger of losing majority support in this country. WSJ and Pew research polls show support for free trade slipping among both Republicans and Democrats. As Sherrod Brown and the rest of the 2006 "Lou Dobbs Democrats" assume their places in Congress, one should not imagine opponents of free trade as merely the likes of Nader, Perot, and Buchanan - harsh words for free trade are becoming mainstream. As an active member of the Democratic Leadership Council, Harold Ford Jr. criticizes China's "unfair trading practices." Recall that DLC was a mainstay of pro free trade thought during the Clinton years, especially during the early battle over NAFTA. At the "YearlyKos" blogger convention in Chicago this August, Hillary Clinton responded to a question about NAFTA with a thumbs down. John Edwards says if elected he does not even want Congress to renew Presidential Trade Promotional Authority (so-called "fast track" authority that enables the President to submit trade deals to Congress for an up or down vote, no amendments). Given that in 1998 - when the national economic mood was far brighter - President Clinton could not persuade House Democrats to support TPA renewal, it seems highly unlikely any Democrat elected in 2008 would be able to keep TPA anyway. In the next few years U.S. bilateral trade negotiations will probably grind to a halt.
All this brings to mind a fascinating (if dated) piece by Paul Krugman about why the idea of comparative advantage is so difficult for people to comprehend. This piece focuses mostly on elite opinion - the attitudes of financially anxious middle-class families or laid-off manufacturing workers are not foremost in Krugman's analysis. Yet the views of taste-makers inevitably filter down to ordinary Americans looking to find culprits behind their economic woes. Anyone with an interest in defending this beleaguered idea will do well to read Krugman's essay.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment