NAFTA bashing off the Democrats’ agenda

Obama and one-time rival Hillary Rodham Clinton fell over themselves vilifying free trade deals during the marathon months of nominating contests, telling workers they would update NAFTA with partners Canada and Mexico. Part of the reason Obama has since gone silent on NAFTA is because it riles up some unions and staunch Democrats, but not independent and swing voters.

By PHILIP ELLIOTT
The Associated Press

8/29/2008

DENVER — The once-decried free trade deals of the primaries have been all but abandoned as political boogeymen.

During the Democrats’ nominating convention here this week, nary a mention arose about the North American Free Trade Agreement or its peers. There was talk about how President Bush ruined the economy and how Barack Obama would change it, along with Obama’s policy proposals for recovery.

But as Obama and running mate Joe Biden plan a trip in the coming days to parts of the country that were hardest hit in the years after NAFTA — Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan — progressive activists are pushing for the Democratic nominees to make the issue central to their campaign in the Rust Belt.

“I don’t think you can come into a state like Ohio and have any success at all with a complete free-trade policy and lack of concern about the downside of globalization,” said Rep. Tim Ryan, an Ohio Democrat who represents parts of northeast Ohio where steel mills have gone still and residents have left.

The message also might be Obama’s best chance to connect with voting blocs he has struggled to lure to his camp.

“This is an issue that would play very, very well with a demographic he needs to pick up,” said Peter Francia, who teaches labor and politics at East Carolina University. “There are a lot of voters, particularly white, working-class voters, who are against NAFTA.”

Obama and one-time rival Hillary Rodham Clinton fell over themselves vilifying free trade deals during the marathon months of nominating contests, telling workers they would update NAFTA with partners Canada and Mexico. If only NAFTA were “fixed,” all those factories would be screaming again and union-protected jobs would return, they told voters.

Part of the reason Obama has gone silent on NAFTA is because it riles up some unions and staunch Democrats, but not independent and swing voters. NAFTA is an easy target because some voters blame such trade deals for lost jobs, but its details don’t work well in 30-second soundbites.

The law gave Obama a way during the primaries to attack Clinton, whose husband as president championed the legislation among Canada and Mexico that he blamed for job losses. And Clinton aides hammered Obama for keeping close an adviser who signaled to the Canadians that his demonizing was purely political.

“(Democrats) have to tread lightly because Bill Clinton was in the White House (when NAFTA passed),” said Francia. “Democrats have clearly moved away from free-trade agreements.”

Progressive activists say they’re confused by the shift. They believe that if Republican John McCain is forced to talk about NAFTA, he will lose votes in that region. For instance, a retired union official in Youngstown, Ohio, called the law a four-letter word during a McCain town hall.

“The NAFTA stuff will, in fact, come back into the campaign dramatically,” said Robert Borosage of the progressive Campaign for America’s Future. “It’s a contrast that makes a great deal of difference in key states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.”

But rivals charge that it’s not realistic in the immediate term.

“The Democrats campaign as perfectionists, take advantage of the fact that trade is treated with suspicion ... and harvest votes as critics of trade but being under no obligation to deliver on what they promise,” said Phil English, a Republican from Pennsylvania.