Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Dec. 12, 2001 / 27 Kislev, 5762

Amity Shlaes

Amity Shlaes
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

A flamboyant reversal for the Democratic party -- THE striking thing about Capitol Hill's battle over legislation to promote freer trade is not that it is taking place but that the Democrats are playing the role of protectionists and the Republicans that of free marketeers.

In last week's House vote, President George W. Bush came within two votes of failing to win new freedom to write trade treaties in the form of so-called Trade Promotion Authority. All but 21 Democrats opposed the legislation, which would confine Congress's say in the treaty writing to veto power. The legislation is likely to pass the Senate - but with more resistance from Democrats than liberalisation has faced at other points.

This constitutes a flamboyant reversal for the Democratic party. Through much of America's history, the Democrats were the free traders and the Republicans were the nasty tariff men. And while the switch could pay off in the short term, it may not prove so wise in the end. For, as recent Republican experience has shown, attempting to block freer trade can backfire badly.

To understand the scale of the heritage the Democrats are abandoning, it helps to recall some history. As far back as 1888, Democratic president Grover Cleveland made tariff reduction the centrepiece of his campaign. He lost to Benjamin Harrison after Republicans accused him of the great sin of attempting to "fasten upon this country the British policy of free foreign trade". Forty-five years later, Franklin D. Roosevelt beat Herbert Hoover after Hoover had signed into law the now infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.

In the 1960s, John F. Kennedy saw expanding international trade as crucial to cold war victory. Speaking of the European Common Market, he said: "To share in that market we must strike a bargain - we must have something to give the Europeans - we must be willing to give them access to our markets." The political encyclopaedist Michael Barone, who has made a study of the Democratic switch, notes that one of Kennedy's opponents was Prescott Bush, grandfather of the current president.

The Democratic commitment to trade was so strong that it trumped partisan concerns. In the 1970s and 1980s, a Democratic congress repeatedly opted to tie its own hands by backing Republican presidents in giving them fast track, the precursor to TPA.

President Bill Clinton likewise muted the objections of his own union supporters when he pushed through the North American Free Trade Agreement. The results were positive for nearly everyone, including many Democrats and union workers. As Robert Zoellick, the current US Trade Representative, has talked himself hoarse pointing out, the Clinton trade work generated gains of $1,300-$2,000 a year for the average household.

So what moved the Democrats to jettison their legacy?

Organised labour is the first answer. America's AFL-CIO is fast moving leftward on trade - taking the Democratic party with it. For while ignoring labour's wishes used to be possible for the Democrats, it is not any more. Unions have become too big a source of Democratic campaign funds (the biggest, if you include in kind donations such as organised telephone drives). John Sweeney, AFL-CIO president, worked hard for the Democrats in 2000. The nays on TPA are his reward.

Of course, the Democrats have long been affiliated with unions. But today, notes scholar Leo Troy of Rutgers University, the Democrats have turned into something akin to the UK Labour party of 1970s. Tellingly, trade legislation produced by Democrats in the House as an alternate to TPA included a bid to strengthen union power across the globe by requiring that the US back the right of workers in other countries to collective bargaining. Nice try, fellows.

The second force behind the Democratic switch is what might be called the Nike attitude - a growing desire to put social goals above "mere economics". Younger Democrats, especially those representing wealthy constituencies, are susceptible to the Nike attitude. In the case of the TPA debate, they are saying new trade freedoms cannot be granted without higher pay scales for workers worldwide.

The attitude has some sentimental appeal but wilfully ignores the genuine and social benefits that accrue from trade-generated growth, both abroad and at home. Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington state, for example, opposes TPA for Mr Bush, even though she herself made an internet fortune by participating in international trade and even though Microsoft, her constituent, supports TPA.

The third thing motivating the Democrats on trade is simple partisan politics. With their trade vote, the Democrats in the House badly wanted to hand Mr Bush his first big legislative defeat. What is more, they reason that if, in a time of recession, they can depict Mr Bush as sacrificing the working man in all his vulnerability, they will move on to big election victories.

Such calculations have proved risky. In the 1990s, many Republicans opposed Nafta and fast track not so much because they believed in protectionism as because they thought their opposition would unman Mr Clinton. When the economy expanded after Nafta's passage, it was the Republicans' own image that was badly undermined - especially their precious reputation as economic rainmakers.

This is a story without angels. Politicians are trade hypocrites a thousand times over, as the Bush administration demonstrated again just now by its unnecessarily vigorous defence of Big Steel. Still, going protectionist in these days of diversified, flexible economies means ceding the centre. Come recovery, the Democrats who opposed TPA will have a hard time proving that they did not make a bad trade.

JWR contributor Amity Shlaes is a columnist for Financial Times . Her latest book is The Greedy Hand: How Taxes Drive Americans Crazy and What to Do About It. Send your comments by clicking here.


12/06/01: Threat of an oil embargo on the U.S. is a bluff
11/29/01: Which is more important--the war or diplomatic comity?
11/20/01: Unbalanced by a wealth of oil and diamonds
10/17/01: Afghanistan Needs a General MacArthur
09/27/01: The US has gained an understanding of the costs of war for which its European allies have hitherto wished in vain
09/13/01: War against terrorism will rise from the ashes
08/15/01: Geography is no excuse for the state's economic stagnation. Its policymakers should take a leaf from Ireland's book
08/07/01: Teamsters may pay a heavy price for winning its batle in Congress
07/25/01: Towards a patent-free nirvana?
07/17/01: History proves the lasting value of tax cuts
07/10/01: Stem cell research has awakened a bitter debate in Washington but voters care more about other electoral issues
07/03/01: America foots the bill for Europe's largesse
06/26/01: America the litigious, land of the lawyer's fee
06/20/01: Five reasons for gloom about global growth 06/18/01: Show pity for Alice in Tax Wonderland
06/13/01: America must take a French lesson in trade
06/11/01: Time to dream the impossible dream for Iraq
06/07/01: Whatever happened to simple?
06/04/01: When the relationship between companies becomes as close as a marriage, the eventual break-up is often very painful
06/01/01: Loving and hating the Bush tax bill
05/30/01: Will Grisham soon be unemployed? In America's courts these days, there's no room left over for legal fiction
05/22/01: Republicans sample the rhetoric of confidence
05/16/01: Boeing has been promised $60m to site its headquarters in Illinois. The deal looks a poor one for taxpayers
05/14/01: Adam Smith in love
05/09/01: Those rotten Russian capitalists
05/07/01: Why tax havens provide shelter for everyone
05/04/01: Middle classes pay for get-the-rich folly
05/01/01: Money can't buy happiness? Think again.
04/26/01: Calling America's rogues and entrepreneurs
04/19/01: High earners right to feel lonely at the top
04/11/01: The right must learn the comfort of strangers
04/04/01: When domestic law arrives by the back door
03/30/01: A Lexus tax cut suits the jalopy driver
03/27/01: The unchallenged dominance of King Dollar
03/20/01: Natural selection of an intellectual aristocracy
03/16/01: The hidden danger of a regulatory recession
03/14/01: Is the American condition that boring? Why so many Oscar nominated movies aren't set in America
03/07/01: Trampling on the theory of path dependence
03/05/01: Fighting the good fight
03/01/01: It is time for Fannie and Freddie to grow up
02/27/01: IT's important
02/22/01: The guilty conscience of America's millionaires
02/14/01: The benefits of helping the 'rich'
02/09/01: The Danger and Promise of the Bush Schools Plan
02/05/01: Crack and Compassion
01/31/01: Debt is good
01/29/01: Clueless
01/24/01: A gloomy end for a half-hearted undertaking
01/17/01: The challenge of an ally with its own mind
01/15/01: An unexpected American family portrait
01/10/01: A fitting legacy for America's beloved dictator
01/08/01: The trick of tax 'convenience'
01/03/01: Time to stop blaming Greenspan over taxes
12/11/00: So smart they're dumb
12/06/00: How economic bad news came good for Bush
12/04/00: The Boies factor
11/30/00: "The inevitable demands for recounts erupted like acne…"
11/28/00: Fair play and the rules of the electoral game
11/23/00: The shining prospect beyond a cloudy election
11/21/00: Try the Cleveland model
11/16/00: A surprising winner emerges in the US election
11/09/00: Those powerful expats
11/07/00: What's right for America versus what works
11/02/00: Time to turn off big government's autopilot
10/30/00: Canada beating America in financial sensibility
10/26/00: When progressiveness leads to backwardness
10/24/00: The most accurate poll
10/19/00: The Middle East tells us the hawks were right
10/17/00: The split personalities of America's super rich
10/10/00: 'Equity Rights' or Wake up and Smell the Starbucks
10/04/00: Trapped in the basement of global capitalism
09/21/00: The final act of a grand presidential tragedy
09/21/00: Europeans strike back at the fuel tax monster. Should Americans follow?
09/18/00: First steps to success
09/13/00: America rejects the human rights transplant
09/07/00: Minimum wage, maximum cost
09/05/00: Prudent Al Gore plans some serious spending
08/31/00: A revolution fails to bring power to the people
08/28/00: A reali$tic poll
08/21/00: "I Goofed"
08/16/00: Part of the union, but not part of the party
08/09/00: Silicon Alley Secrets
08/02/00: Radical Republicans warm up for Philadelphia
07/31/00: I'll Cry if I Want To
07/27/00: Cold warrior of the new world
07/25/00: The Estate Tax will drop dead
07/18/00: Shooting down the anti-missile defence myths
07/14/00: A convenient punchbag for America's leaders
07/07/00: How to destroy the pharmaceutical industry
07/05/00: Patriots and bleeding hearts
06/30/00: Candidates beware: New Washington consensus on robust growth stands the old wisdom on its head
06/28/00: White America's flight to educational quality
06/26/00: How Hillary inspired the feminist infobabes

© 2001, Financial Times