The CAFTA free trade agreement has not received much press, the media concerned with other things which in various respects matter less, and I myself have not read up too much on the darn thing. I am philosophically sympathetic to free trade (our own Constitution sets up a sort of free trade zone in our borders pursuant to Art. I., sec. 9 and 10), but the rub seems to be that in practice inequities arise. After all, this country's free trade zone brings with it certain national safeguards.
One recalls that in our own history free trade was not deemed a great idea -- tariffs was often the name of the game, in significant part to protect developing domestic industries. The same applies to the still developing and unevenly matched Latin American countries involved here. Overall, foreign workers apparently come off rather badly under this sort of legislation. And, those quite concerned with American sovereignty should be be concerned as well.*
Anyway, a red flag should be raised when significant legislation passes 217-215 (thanks to 15 Democrats [and that Vermont guy] crossing the aisle, though a few Republicans did as well: this is not necessarily a simple partisan issue). For the sake of levity, I offer this account:
If you haven't yet, do take a look at Charles Taylor's brief statement alleging that he voted no on CAFTA last night but that an error caused his vote not to be recorded. CAFTA passed, remember, 217 to 215, with two members recorded as no-votes. A spokesman for the other abstainer, Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, confirmed to me that she indeed did not vote; she tried to get back to the capital from a Boy Scout jamboree in time to vote, but just couldn't make it.
Ha ha! As with the Medicare vote there was some late night shenanigans (to go along with the special perks being sneaked in late ... after committee and conference votes ... in the "energy bill"):
The 217 to 215 vote came just after midnight, in a dramatic finish that highlighted the intensity brought by both sides to the battle. When the usual 15-minute voting period expired at 11:17 p.m., the no votes outnumbered the yes votes by 180 to 175, with dozens of members undeclared. House Republican leaders kept the voting open for another 47 minutes, furiously rounding up holdouts in their own party until they had secured just enough to ensure approval.
The sort of thing they railed against when those darn Dems were in power --- not really, since it was more minor violations of norms back then. You know, when even Senate Republicans had a bit of a spine and respect for congressional privileges and fair dealing. Ah well.
----
* Matthew Yglesias suggests that the law won't affect the U.S. too much though it might well affect Central Americans to a significant degree if they "buy a lot of medicine or make [their] money growing food." Well, hell, who cares about them, right? He does note the real "action" is elsewhere, but still, if this is so symbolic, why the arm twisting? [Though I hear sugar beet farmers are upset.]
The basic point, however, is that on principle Dems probably should be against this sort of thing. Prove me wrong, but 217-215, mainly Dems dissenting suggests "no" unless one can convince otherwise. And, darn if Norma Klein (The Nation etc.) types have only strengthened by wariness for "free trade" as currently carried forth.