There’s nothing like international trade to help bridge America’s ideological divide. As Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton travel the country’s former manufacturing centers, the Democratic candidates seem to be eschewing the advice of their economic advisers and turning to Karl Rove’s methods.
It was Mr. Rove, President Bush’s political adviser, who urged Dick Cheney in 2000 to forget the free trade talk and promise voters in West Virginia that a Bush administration would protect American steel from cheap imports. “If our trading partners violate our trade laws, we will respond swiftly and firmly,” Mr. Cheney thundered.
Those words seem to echo in Mr. Obama’s attacks against “unfair” trade deals - including Nafta, Cafta and President Bill Clinton’s decision to establish regular trade relations with China. Mrs. Clinton seems to draw inspiration as well, railing to the argest labor union in Pennsylvania against alleged dumping of Chinese steel: “When I’m President, China will be a trade partner not a trade master,” she said.
Such pandering may play on the campaign trail, especially in Pennsylvania, where workers fear for their jobs as the country’s manufacturing base shrinks. Still, whoever wins in November would be foolish to choose protectionism.
Democrats need to tell voters the truth: First, trade is good for the economy, providing cheap imports and markets for exports, spurring productivity and raising living standards. And second, while trade can drive down some wages and displace some jobs, Democrats have real ideas to help workers cope. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama should base their approach on these ideas. They would not only make sound policy, they would also provide a competitive advantage over John Mc- Cain.
Fortunately, presidents don’t have as much power on these matters as candidates claim. When President Bush put stiff tariffs on imported steel in 2002, he infuriated European allies and then had to lift the tariffs when the World Trade Organization declared them illegal.
Senators Clinton and Obama know protectionism could have disastrous consequences.
American workers need more to help them cope in a globalizing economy. The puny program to help workers displaced by trade needs to be strengthened and broadened .
Workers need affordable health insurance that will not disappear when they are laid off. Unemployment insurance needs to be strengthened, perhaps to include some form of insurance to shore up the wages of displaced workers who are forced to take lesser-paying jobs. A more progressive tax policy could help redistribute some of the gains of trade accruing to those on the top of the income scale. More investment in physical and human capital would enable businesses and workers to better compete.
Senators Clinton and Obama can offer policies that will help American workers embrace rather than fear a globalized world. American voters certainly deserve a more serious discussion about trade.