Obama Backs Off On NAFTA
Should I be relieved that Obama didn’t mean what he said about NAFTA during the Democratic primaries, or disappointed that our probable next president has revealed himself as another shameless opportunist?
The general campaign is on, independent voters are up for grabs, and Barack Obama is toning down his populist rhetoric – at least when it comes to free trade.
In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine’s upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn’t want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.
“Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake,” despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.
Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? “Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself,” he answered.
Obama says he believes in “opening up a dialogue” with trading partners Canada and Mexico “and figuring to how we can make this work for all people.”
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said that Obama-as the candidate noted in Fortune’s interview-has not changed his core position on NAFTA, and that he has always said he would talk to the leaders of Canada and Mexico in an effort to include enforceable labor and environmental standards in the pact.
Nevertheless, Obama’s tone stands in marked contrast to his primary campaign’s anti-NAFTA fusillades. The pact creating a North American free-trade zone was President Bill Clinton’s signature accomplishment; but NAFTA is also the bugaboo of union leaders, grassroots activists and Midwesterners who blame free trade for the factory closings they see in their hometowns.
The Democratic candidates fought hard to win over those factions of their party, with Obama generally following Hillary Clinton’s lead in setting a protectionist tone.
In February, as the campaign moved into the Rust Belt, both candidates vowed to invoke a six-month opt-out clause (“as a hammer,” in Obama’s words) to pressure Canada and Mexico to make concessions.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper called that threat a mistake, and other leaders abroad expressed worries about their trade deals. Leading House Democrats, including Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel, distanced themselves from the candidates.
Now, however, Obama says he doesn’t believe in unilaterally reopening NAFTA.
Actually, for me the choice is easy – I’m relieved. Populist protectionism is the path to long-term economic ruin, and it’s the last thing we can afford at such a (temporary) down time in the economic cycle.
I only hope he follows through on his ‘free-trader’ rhetoric and resists the temptation to nominate the hopelessly socialist James Webb as his VP, as some have loudly suggested…
Now Jim Webb, the former Republican and cultural conservative, is a socialist? It’s amazing that, with so many Democrats in Congress, they haven’t been able to enact their secret plan to nationalize the means of production. Watch out, Detroit! The DMV is coming to take over your car factories!
That nonsense aside, it’s hilarious (and more than a little weak) that you go after Obama as a “shameless opportunist” for changing the emphasis of his NAFTA position (rather than actually changing any significant facts about his position), but you’re more than content to let McCain continue completely changing his mind as he goes, just as long as he changes it in the direction you want. If Obama is shameless, McCain must be downright sinister.
It’s been suggested.
Perhaps you’ve forgotten how Congress works. Legislation must first be drafted, introduced into committee, debated, approved, sent to the full house, where it must be debated and approved again, and then an identical piece of legislation must undergo the same process in the other house. A bill must receive 60 votes in the Senate to pass (in effect). Then the President must sign the bill.
The Democrats have started talking about nationalizing and/or socializing the oil industry because they feel that the oil companies’ profit margins of ~10% is too high. When the government takes it upon itself to dictate what an acceptable profit margin is for a private industry, I’m not sure what exactly you call that, but it isn’t capitalism. The Democrats have already tried to pass such a bill, but Senate Republicans (thankfully) stopped them, and even if it had gotten through the Senate, President Bush would have vetoed it.
Of course, if Obama is elected and the Democrats manage to pick up enough seats in the Senate and convince a few liberal Republicans to vote with them, they may be able to implement their socialist fantasies.
As for Senator Webb, specifically, his own words should suffice for that.
But yeah, it is pretty weak for Mark to call Obama a shameless opportunist for promising to pull out of NAFTA unilaterally if Mexico and Canada refuse to renegotiate it while he was campaigning for the Democratic nomination in the Rust Belt and now say that he won’t pull out of it unilaterally. Oh wait . . .
That is not true. He was going to “opt out” aka withdraw from the treaty unless they agreed to his changes. Now, he is just going to talk.
I guesss that economist was authorized after all. He certainly was right, it was all just for the rubes.
Aaron, I fail to see anywhere that Webb advocates nationalizing anything in that editorial. A class-based critique of income inequality could be socialist if his solutions involved government or community control of the means of production. On the other hand, if his solutions involve things like trade barriers and changes in the tax structure, it’s possible that maybe – just maybe – he’s a conservative. Unless you think Pat Buchanan and The American Conservative magazine (all of whom are quite fond of Webb) are socialists. I’d like to see someone try to make that case, in fact.
And I’m sorry, but Maxine Waters wants to nationalize the oil industry. Are we seriously taking Maxine Waters as the standard for what the Democratic Party as a whole believes? Can we now take Tom “Death Penalty for Abortion Providers” Coburn as the standard for the GOP?
As for Obama, he wanted to talk before and threatened to opt out if he didn’t get what he wants… and now he still wants to talk but isn’t willing to unilaterally withdraw. Wow, yeah, that is a huge change. Forgive me for missing it. I turned off my GOP talking points download for a minute, but we’re back in business now.
This is just Obama “remessaging” for the general election.
I’d be far more relieved if I had any hope at all that the more moderate positions he now espouses were closer to his true beliefs than his former, more extreme positions were.
Well, every time I call James Webb a socialist, I get criticized, but we’ve debated this at length before, right at this very blog, and there is evidence to suggest he certainly has socialist tendencies, as I noted at more length here…
Though in fairness, reviewing my old posts about Webb, he was accused at one point (by The Nation, no less!) of taking his cues from Marx and Engels, and when I looked into it, it was quite an exaggeration…so I retract “hopelessly socialist” and substitute “solid progressive” (which still means he has strong socialist tendencies, but in the modern anti-globalization context)…yet and still, he’s awfully fond of ‘class struggle’ as the defining economic metaphor, no?…Oh, heck, call him what you want, just don’t make him my Vice President!…
Let’s forget about Webb’s ideology for a moment. Do you think that he would be a net positive for Obama’s chances to be elected? Is there another Democrat who you think would make a stronger ticket?
Well, you’re putting me in an impossible situation…because I can’t think like an anti-globalism ‘progressive’. He would appeal to the Kos Kidz, no doubt, and the MoveOn crowd…but I think he would be a net negative before very long at all…
I’m not familiar enough with his thinking to say anything intelligent — however it seems to me that his biography would be a great fit — former head of the Navy, former Republican, mucho macho guy (but with a sensitive side! he writes novels!), kid in Iraq, probably a lot of appeal to white working class voters and veterans — I would personally go with Chris Dodd, but an Obama/Webb ticket would be quite unlike anything we’ve seen before.
Well, he’s got some negatives to go with the positives, let’s just say that…and he’s VERY rough around the edges at times…
This week’s Economist has an editorial which says that Obama “could do better” than Webb for a VP selection. They think he would be an electoral positive by appealing to white voters who would otherwise vote McCain and by carrying Virginia. However, they consider him to be an indifferent campaigner (he looks like an “angry potato”), but most important in their non-endorsement is what they consider to be his over-the-top populism and anti-business economic views.
Well, three cheers for the Economist!…
Also a front page article on Webb in today’s Wall Street Journal — he seems to be getting more buzz than any other potential VP candidate –
[...] support invoking the six-month opt-out clause from NAFTA, except (wink, wink) I don’t really intend to do it, I just support the concept of doing it, as opposed to the actual [...]