Two public officials made strong statements in favor of free trade and free markets today. One will never face an election again, but his support and his stance against trade demagoguery is most welcome:

President Bush chastised lawmakers on Tuesday for letting international trade deals falter in Congress and criticized Democratic presidential contenders for wanting to scrap or amend the vast North American free-trade zone.

At the close of a two-day summit, Bush, along with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, stood solidly behind the North American Free Trade Agreement. Under NAFTA, trade between the U.S., Canada and Mexico has swelled from roughly $290 billion in 1994 to an estimated $1 trillion by the end of this year.

"Now is not the time to renegotiate NAFTA or walk away from NAFTA," Bush said. "Now is the time to make it work better for all our people. And now is the time to reduce trade barriers worldwide."

The summit was overshadowed by Tuesday's Pennsylvania Democratic presidential primary race between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, who have threatened to pull the U.S. out of NAFTA or renegotiate it to push for more protections for workers and the environment.

With fears about job security already being fanned by downturns in the economy, trade has become a key issue of the presidential election. Bush argued that NAFTA has fostered prosperity in all three countries and that Clinton and Obama are wrongly using anti-trade messages to lure working class voters. Free-trade opponents say expanded international trade helps businesses, but threatens U.S. jobs and keeps wages from growing.

Bush warned that without NAFTA, migratory pressure from Mexico would be worse.

"If you do away with NAFTA, there's going to be a lot of Mexicans, more Mexicans out of work," Bush said. "It will make it harder on the border.

"So people who say, `Let's get rid of NAFTA' because of a throwaway political line, must understand this has been good for America and it's also been good for Mexico and Canada."

Read on . . .

As the President pointed out, the real danger is not pointed to NAFTA as much as it is to future free trade deals. Again, the export market is one of the few bright spots for the American economy. If we decide to shut down on free trade, even that support mechanism will fall away and if you think that current economic conditions are forbidding, you ain't seen nothing yet.

There is another public official whose comments concerning trade ought to be noticed. Unlike President Bush, he does face an election. The ultimate one, in fact. And his comments on this issue are tremendously welcome and courageous:

John McCain came to the Rust Belt on Tuesday to promote worker re-training for the new economy and to denounce "the siren song" of protectionism.

"The answer is education and training," McCain said in front of a rusted, empty steel-fabricating factory here.

Youngstown is the latest stop on McCain's tour this week of what his campaign portrays as "forgotten" places -- communities struggling with changes in the global economy.

[. . .]

A man who identified himself as a former AFL-CIO official challenged McCain over the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada.

McCain said that, violations aside, the problem is not free trade, but rather "our inability to adjust to a new world economy." He said the future does not belong to the "old industries," but rather "the information technology revolution."

Tying the area's struggles to his own early struggles in this presidential race, McCain said, "Sometimes you get a second chance and opportunity turns back your way. And when it does, we are stronger and readier because of all that we had to overcome."

That's responsibility politics. Hopefully, it will win an election and if it does, we have a better chance at fashioning the prosperity we dream of and deserve.

Related posts

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008 at 6:41 am.
Categories: , , , , , , , , , , .

No Comments, Comment or Ping

Reply to “Responsibility Politics”