I think Dan Drezner is being too hyperbolic in this generally quite insightful post on the Democratic Party and CAFTA. Is it troubling for trade-supporting Democrats like me that only 5 members of the Democratic caucus in the US House (Moran, Jefferson, Cuellar, Dicks and Tanner) are openly committed to approving the trade pact? Yes. But a few things are important to mention. The Democrats in the US House have been less supportive of free trade than many other Democratic leaders for a considerable period of time. For just one example, take NAFTA. It was passed with more votes from Republicans than from Democrats - though Democrats controlled the House at the time. But that doesn't mean that the party is composed of nothing but opponents of trade. The presidential nominee last year was a NAFTA supporter. And during the Clinton era many more business and trade friendly Democrats came into leadership positions in the party, and many of them are still active. The article by Jonathan Weisman that Drezner cites refers to "50 pro-trade Democrats ... voting against CAFTA", so obviously there are some Democrats in the House who are still open to trade deals. The article also notes that some of the most impressive members of the Clinton cabinet, people like former Secretaries Perry, Shalala and Glickman, have been openly supporting the agreement. And of course, should a Democrat ever retake the White House, there is ever reason to believe that that individual will be more supportive of international trade agreements than the likes of Sander Levin, Marcy Kaptur or Gene Taylor. Are the Democrats more likely to oppose free trade without one of their own living at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.? Of course. But I wouldn't start writing the post mortem for trade-friendly Democrats just yet.
Posted by armand at July 7, 2005 10:00 AM | TrackBack | Posted to International AffairsYou have to admit though, that it's not so hard to see why taking a stance against CAFTA seems like a reasonable step for democrats, in the "appease the base" department. Of course, the worry is not the Americas, but elsewhere, in the shifting labor market (e.g. all those worries about jobs going to Mexico with NAFTA are pretty funny now that Mexico is woriying about losing jobs to Viet Nam). From a logical perspective, it makes very litle sense, and not only in the way you describe (the "it's ok for democrats to like trade" perspective"). The impact of CAFTA is not going to be all that large, and the argument that some analysts applied to NAFTA ("it's foreign policy, stupid") applies even more so here. If you look at the trade relationships the US has with Central America, CAFTA adds little to an existing and widespread openness. I put CAFTA in the "keeping the neighbors happy" file.
Posted by: binky at July 7, 2005 12:53 PM | PERMALINKI was a big NAFTA supporter for exactly that reason, and I think that generally this is a step in the right direction for both that reason & the usual "benefits of trade" reasons. But yeah, this is short-sighted pleasing-the-base behavior. Which is really why the House Dems are usually the most protectionist national party leaders - that's all they have to do since there are only a handful who represent competitive districts and have to seek votes/funding beyond traditional interests.
Posted by: Armand at July 7, 2005 01:58 PM | PERMALINKAh well, silly us to expect rational positions out ofour elected representatives. [bad member of the reality based community. bad!]
Posted by: binky at July 7, 2005 02:56 PM | PERMALINK