Obama Is Selling the TPP Trade Deal Just Like Al Gore Sold NAFTA

[cali]

One of President Barack Obama’s favorite points to make in the intra-party dispute over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement with twelve Pacific Rim nations is that his opponents rehash the same old, tired anti-globalization arguments. As Obama told the Wall Street Journal on Monday, “There has been a confluence of anti-global engagement from both elements of the right and elements of the left that I think [is] a big mistake.”

But Obama’s arguments are old and tired, too. They come from a playbook for how the last Democratic administration sold a free trade deal opposed by unions and the party base. Watch this 1993 CNN debate on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between Vice President Al Gore and Ross Perot:

That remarkable debate, where a sitting vice president and a former presidential candidate took phone calls with Larry King, happened eight days before the final NAFTA vote in Congress. It is remembered now mostly for Perot’s continual anger at being interrupted; “Can I finish!” became a Dana Carvey SNL tag line, and Perot turned into a national joke. Gore earned praise for keeping Perot off-balance with aggressive debate tactics, but the core arguments should all sound familiar. Let’s go through them, one by one:


Gore made a distinction between previous trade deals with Japan and China, and NAFTA, with its side agreements on labor and the environment. Critics of NAFTA “confuse the bad trade deals in the past with this one,” Gore said. “We've got a commitment for the first time in history to use trade sanctions to compel the enforcement of their environmental standards.”

<snip>

But just as NAFTA’s side agreements did not compel enforcement on Mexico’s labor and environmental laws, deals signed and administered by Obama aren’t policed strongly either, as the Government Accountability Office concluded last November. The AFL-CIO filed a legal brief this week over the lack of sanctions, under the Central American Free Trade Agreement, for the murder of 17 labor activists in Guatemala. In Colombia, where the administration negotiated an “ambitious and comprehensive” plan to protect worker’s rights, 105 trade unionists have been murdered over the last four years. Rather pathetically, the U.S. Trade Representative’s office boasted that the murder rate was lower than in previous years. And TPP rules reportedly represent a downgrade from the Colombia standards.


<snip>
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121670/obamas-tpp-arguments-mimic-gores-nafta-defense

Which side are you on?

[DanTex]

1. Here's the link to the video of the debate between Gore and Perot. Interesting.

[cali]

2. oops. thanks for posting that, Dan. I meant to and then forgot.

[Motown_Johnny]

3. It wasn't just VP Gore

Sec. Clinton starts in at about 3:30 in this video. Try to picture her in a one on one debate for the Presidency. It could easily be a blood bath (calling for a "time out" WTF!?!?!?).

Please watch Mr. Obama's statements there too. I am not hearing any of that now.

[KittyWampus]

9. Paul Krugman on NAFTA (since we're going back to see who said what):

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/mexico/1993-12-01/uncomfortable-truth-about-nafta-its-foreign-policy-stupid


The Uncomfortable Truth about NAFTA: It's Foreign Policy, Stupid
By Paul Krugman

snip

Similarly, the hard-core opposition to NAFTA is rooted in a modern populism that desperately wants to defend industrial America against the forces that are transforming us into a service economy. International trade in general, and trade with Mexico in particular, have very little to do with those forces; clinging to the four percent average tariff the United States currently levies on imports of manufactures from Mexico might save a few low-wage industrial jobs for a little while, but it would do almost nothing to stop or even slow the long-run trends that are the real concern of NAFTA's opponents.

It is an unfortunate fact of politics, however, that bad arguments tend to drive out good. With NAFTA's opponents resorting to simplistic but politically effective rhetoric, the agreement's supporters have responded in kind if not in degree. In the glowing picture now presented by NAFTA advocates inside and outside the administration, the agreement will create hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs, do wonders for U.S. competitiveness, and assure the prosperity of North America as a whole. This picture is not as grossly false as that painted by NAFTA's opponents, but it does considerably glamorize the reality.

The truth about NAFTA may be summarized in five propositions:

• NAFTA will have no effect on the number of jobs in the United States;

• NAFTA will not hurt and may help the environment;

• NAFTA will, however, produce only a small gain in overall U.S. real income;

• NAFTA will also probably lead to a slight fall in the real wages of unskilled U.S. workers;

• For the United States, NAFTA is essentially a foreign-policy rather than an economic issue.

snip

NAFTA AS FOREIGN POLICY

While NAFTA's labor and environmental costs to the United States will be minimal, the public believes otherwise. At the same time, the economic benefits of NAFTA to the United States, while real, will be small. One might then ask the following question: Why should the Clinton administration expend a great deal of its depleted political capital in pursuit of an unpopular and economically trivial agreement?

The answer is that the government of Mexico needs NAFTA, and the United States has a strong interest in helping that government.
snip

If the United States rejects NAFTA, it will virtually be asking for a return to the bad old days of U.S.-Mexican relations. For the United States, this agreement is not about jobs. It is not even about economic efficiency and growth. It is about doing what we can to help a friendly government succeed. It will be a monument to our foolishness if our almost wholly irrational fears about NAFTA end up producing an alienated or even hostile nation on our southern border.

[DanTex]

4. I have to admit, the similarities are remarkable.

I'm a defender of Obama on TPP, not exactly in favor of it but also I don't think it's the end of the world. But, yeah, the arguments are basically the same, in a lot of ways. Although Obama is much more charismatic than Gore, who comes off as a know-it-all.

[cali]

6. yeah, President Obama is leagues more charismatic than Gore

Gore invariably came off as pedantic.

[DanTex]

7. On the other hand, one big difference is that Gore's argument that our economy was going to

grow hugely by exporting more stuff to Mexico, or that if we don't sign NAFTA then Mexico is going to somehow leave the US behind and team up with Japan, those strike me as pretty dumb on face.

On the other hand, most of the countries that are part of TPP are wealthy, comparable to the US in per capita economic statistics. E.g. Japan, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan. There are exceptions, notably Vietnam. But, still, arguing that more and freer trade with Japan and Korea would benefit us is much more plausible than the Mexican exports miracle that Gore was promising. And also, it is a fact that some of these nations do discriminate against US companies with non-tariff barriers, the Japanese auto market being an example.

And second, the geopolitical significance of TPP is real, in that we're talking about consolidating US economic influence in China's backyard, as opposed some phony fear that Mexico is going to leave us behind by trading with Japan or whoever.

Still, it's true that a lot of the core arguments are the same, including "this time is different" and "this is our chance to raise labor and environmental standards in other countries" and so on.

[cali]

8. except very little in the TPP actually deals with traditional trade issues

we already trade extensively with the TPP nations, and tariffs are historically low. There, are of course, some exceptions, but in general, that is true.

[DanTex]

10. True, but non-tariff barriers are real things.

If they weren't, then, for example, unions wouldn't be so concerned about TPP resulting in jobs being shipped overseas.

My problem on that front is, I have low confidence in the ability of the proposed tribunals to be able to distinguish between regulations that are specifically designed to be discriminatory versus regulations that are just regulations for the public good.

[appalachiablue]

5. Widespread damage to American jobs, unions and economic security for many cities &

communities, now desolated from destructive Trade Policies going back 22+ years-- CAFTA (Central American Trade agreement), NAFTA (North American Trade Agreement) since 1994 and others--is becoming more apparent and something has to be done to top the decline.

The current TPP, Trans Pacific Trade Agreement under Fast Track now is another end blow to America's economic strength and the survival of the Middle Class. That TPP won't Open the Gates of Hell is a serious matter.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Not to worry. After the TPP is implemented they can "fix" it later.

Just like they "fixed" NAFTA after it was implemented.

[cali]

12. Nah, you're messing up the talking points: The TPP is great and will fix NAFTA

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Kinda like burning down all the trees will stop a forest fire.

[riderinthestorm]

14. This is as important as the Freddie Gray developments and deserves discussion

thanks Cali for posting this...

It's eerie watching the same justifications. Damn eerie...

[AZ Progressive]

15. If it looks like shit, and smells like shit, it's most likely shit

[Populist_Prole]

16. That's what irks me as much as the deal itself

The pushers of this turd behave/act/believe as if we've never heard it all before.

Arrogant. High handed. Glib as all get-out.

[MisterP]

17. they always do: every few months some twatwaffle who's been here 7 weeks

pipes up that DU and the party's problem is Nader/circular firing squads

and their attitude is that they've just had a revelation that smote them until they could barely stand, they descend from the mountain with their hair all white, open their mouth and reveal the Word of God: "guys, primaries cost us the general. we should trust Washington instead of not trusting Washington"