Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) has written a brief against "free trade" and it is a good counterweight to CAFTA and all the other efforts that go the other way. Efforts that ultimately, as shown by the votes in CAFTA, face strong opposition, opposition that has potential to grow even stronger. In my own view, "free trade" is a nice ideal, but as Tina Rosenberg discusses here, we do not have it ... and what we do have leaves something to be desired. Rep. Brown underlines the point in a more forceful matter and spells out the Myths of Free Trade:
-- Americans Believe in Free Trade
-- Free Trade Agreements Are Necessary To Fight The War On Terrorism
-- Free Trade Is An Extension On American Values Abroad
-- Free Trade Leaves Most People Better Off -- In Rich And Poor Nations Alike
-- Free Trade Will Bring Democracy, Human Rights, And Freedom To Authoritarian Nations
-- The North American Free Trade Agreement Has Been A Success
-- Free Trade Is A Great American Tradition
The numbers suggest that the American public is unsure about "free trade" as currently expressed in our trade policy, specifically concerned with certain measures that are worse when one determines that free trade is the panacea so many of its advocates suggest. The second myth appears to me just another way use 9/11 to promote bad policies. As to promoting American values and success overall -- you know the good ones -- the problem is not free trade overall, but the form we use today. And, the trade imbalance -- worsening according to the book -- does not suggest we (as compared to corporations) as a nation are benefiting so much by the status quo.
First, "free trade" was never truly our policy, especially in the first hundred or so years of our history, which had many moves to protect domestic industries.* It is not really the case today -- the encyclopedia nature of these trade policies suggests otherwise. Second, there is a way -- really there seems to be -- to have free trade successfully. It's a question of definition, to use that overused term. The trade should promote "freedom" -- it is unclear how allowing multinationals to sue nations for passing environmental regulations does this or looking the other way when China uses prison slave labor.
Global trade is surely a necessary part of the 21st Century. Workers in Third World Nations flock to the lousy factories that are discussed in this book -- people flocked to factories in this nation in the late 19th Century. This does not mean that they were being exploited and worker rights etc. were not of fundamental importance. And, our government secured such rights and protections, just as a national health insurance plan is of fundamental importance today.
It is quite possible to have trade agreements with other countries and further such goals as well. The EU Union type NAFTA organization that protects not only industry interests but also human interests proposed by Brown is a good idea. The book overall is a passionate book written by a true believer with hope for the future. This is the sort of passion that I want in my leaders, a notable contrast from the likes of Sen. Kerry ... the sort that notes that he believes in side agreements to protect workers, agreements that have the value such afterthoughts deserve. People with their heart perhaps in the right place, but will not catch the nation's hearts.
The potential is there, if people just seize it.
---
* One of the best parts of the book explains how free market idol Adam Smith was not quite as laissez faire as many of his so-called followers suggest. The state of the Christian Right these days suggest this follows a familiar theme.
I would add that the lack of notes is a questionable choice, resulting in various cites and quotes that cannot be checked. I know few actually do that sort of thing, but sometimes they are useful.