Obama says will make strong push for fast-track trade authority

[pampango]

32. That raises the issue that liberals are more likely to support policies that may harm them (or 'us'

in general) if they see a bigger picture that they approve of. Looking at the results of those two questions, while republicans are marginally more likely than Democrats to view 'free trade' as hurting jobs, wages and the economy, republicans are much more likely to few it as bad policy than Democrats are (a plurality of whom support it).

58% of R's and 47% of D's believe it causes job losses, 45% R - 42% D that it lowers wages and 48% R to 34% D that it hurts the economy. Yet republicans think it is bad policy by a 54%-28% margin, while Democrats think it is good policy by a 40%-35% margin. Why are Democrats more likely to support a policy that they themselves view as harmful to themselves? Is there a 'bigger picture'?



A majority of both parties thought that 'free trade' was good for 'developing countries'. Indeed, for the most part, those have been the biggest beneficiaries. The lowest 70% on the global income scale have benefited the most, along with the top 1%. Those who have suffered the most are those in the 80th percentile of global income - most of us - the middle class in the developed world.

Perhaps republicans rightly see that 'we' have suffered the most and do not care much about the 70% so to them the answer is obvious - cut trade to protect 'us' from 'them'. Many liberals would, I think, look at the same graph (below) and wonder if we cannot help the 75%-85% group (most of us) by taxing or limiting the gains of the top 1% without jeopardizing the gains of the bottom 70%.

Is liberals' relative support for "free trade" despite their perception of it as harmful to themselves (and 'us') at all similar to liberal support for the civil rights of racial and ethnic minorities, women, LGBT and immigrants despite the fact that it offers no direct benefits to straight, white male liberals? Indeed most conservatives want to return to the 1950's when white males had all the good jobs and political power. In their minds increasing the access of minorities, women, gays and immigrants to the benefits of the economy means that white men face extra competition for good jobs, college admissions and political power in general. From a selfish, narrow-minded point of view they may have a point but they make no effort to understand the 'bigger picture'.

Job-Killing Trade Deals Pass Congress Amidst Record Democratic Opposition

Indeed one of the interesting aspects of the trade debate is that the republican base largely opposes the WTO and trade agreements but their politicians vote overwhelmingly in favor of them. The Democratic base is more supportive of trade but their politicians largely vote against it.

I have posted this many times and do not disagree with anything in the excerpts you posted.

Roosevelt was also instructed to maximize market access abroad without jeopardizing domestic industry, and reduce tariffs only as necessary to promote exports in accord with the "needs of various branches of American production."

He received these 'instructions' in the legislation authorizing fast track authority for him to negotiate these trade agreements. In more modern times, when congress authorizes 'fast track' for a president it always includes 'instructions' as to what the sense of congress is on what should be included in the agreements that will eventually be submitted to congress for an up-or-down vote.