Do we really need to support candidates who support "free trade"?

[Lord Byron]

I think that this issue hasn't gotten the attention it deserves yet. In my view, it's the most important economic issue of the 2008 election and is a good way to gauge how labor/people-friendly a candidate is.

This is how the candidates seem to me on the issue right now:

Hillary Clinton - Bill Clinton was very much a free-trader, and Mrs. Clinton's been on record telling big businessmen in India that free trade is here to stay. That's how it seems to me. Is this correct?

Barack Obama - He has absolutely no concrete position besides saying that trade agreements should have clauses for labor and environmental protection (duh). I've read The Audacity of Hope, and he says that both sides of the issue have a point and need to be heard. This doesn't mean anything to me. Does anyone here know in which direction he leans?

John Edwards - He seems to represent the anti-free trade, populist wing of the party, but he has a few votes that indicate otherwise. Of the major candidates though, he seems the strongest on this issue. Am I justified in this view? Please tell me if I'm not.

Bill Richardson - I haven't heard anything from him about the issue. He's from the Clinton wing of the party, so I'm pessimistic.

Al Gore - Now this is the candidate whom I'm most concerned about. I've become much more fond of him since he left office. But in the old days, he debated Ross Perot specifically on the issue, strongly advocating free trade. And he was VP under Clinton, and we all know what Clinton thought of free trade. Then in 2000, he took basically the same view on the issue as * and ran with Joe Lieberman. He's gotten much more sensible on foreign policy. I'd like to know from Gore supporters whether his words concerning trade policy have changed. I would love to support Mr. Gore for president, but his record on trade during the 90s is making me worry.

Kucinich - Well, we all know where he stands.

Tom Vilsack - Any details?

Biden - Skeptical since he's from Delaware. Seems Clintonesque.

Dodd - Same as Biden on the record, as far as I know. General moderate party line.

Anyway, I'd just like this thread to be dedicated exclusively to trade policy. Candidate quotes, voting records, anything that you know about any candidate would be helpful to all of us.

[Daylin Byak]

1. No we don't

I'm totally againist free trade cause al it does is make companies easier to outsource jobs overseas. It's like what Thom Hartmann said "The only people that benefit from free trade are the corporations."

[havocmom]

2. Free Traders put corporations above nations.

I won't have them!

[barb162]

3. We need some amount of protectionism to keep wages up

and jobs here and to get jobs back here. I think the Democratic candidates so far are afraid to bring this issue up or are clueless on this issue.

[gratuitous]

4. I'm tentatively for free trade

But the environmental and labor portions of the agreement must come first, not put off as some by-and-by "side agreement" that never gets done, as in NAFTA. I also demand that freedom of labor to move (read: open borders, no passports) as easily as capital moves must be part of any free trade agreement. With those three elements guaranteed, first and up front before anything else, then I'll consider the "rights" of nameless, faceless, unaccountable corporations.

[MH1]

5. Globalization is a fact like gravity

It is not something you can be "for" or "against". The question is how should we manage it?

"Free Trade" when it means corporations get to run roughshod over labor, environmental, consumer, competition, and other protections, is evil and should be prevented.

"Free Trade" when it means that goods flow freely across borders in a market system where all costs are captured in the product cost, is probably a good thing in most cases.

But even in it's worst incarnation, the building of economic dependencies between nations can be a force that prevents war.

If I have to choose between unfair "free trade" and war, I will take free trade. I would much prefer Fair Trade, but sometimes that choice isn't on the table.

So, to answer the question of the o.p., I think we need to include adult, rational discussion of the facets of trade policy in our evaluation of candidates. And people labled "free traders" should be welcome to that discussion, although not necessarily supported for the nomination.

[Solon]

8. You create a false dichonomy and seem to forget the "people factor"...

Simply put, the way "Free Trade" is done now will guarantee violence in one form or another simply because violence is needed to keep the system in place. This violence doesn't have to be in war, but in armed guards in factories that make sure you don't try to leave. People have a great tolerance for this type of shit, but that tolerance seems to be waning, especially in nations in South and Central America, where they still have some democratic institutions, and therefore vote out the "free traders". But in nations that are even more oppressive, with less Democracy, only one thing will occur, revolution, and, as a response to that, police state tactics.

Free trade as it is today works great where democratic governments are able to keep JUST ENOUGH benefits for normal folks to keep it going, but in other nations, where no benefits occur, democracy is a detriment, not a benefit.

[Lord Byron]

9. Interesting perspective

eom

[Solon]

10. I take a large view...

An obvious example of my last sentence is the United States, we have just enough benefits, Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, to keep the populace in check, but how long would "Free Traders" last if we go through what Argentina went though in the past decade?

People in the United States are quite tolerant of a lot of shit, we take a lot of it as it is now, especially in regards to Health Care. But the facade has been cracking for a long time, and while I don't fault the Democrats for trying to seal the cracks back up, we need to do that plus remake this whole "free trade" based economy. We will reach a point where our free trade agreements will conflict with our protections for workers, those few that exist, its already happening, in small forms, and has for decades. But what will we do if the WTO demands we get rid of the minimum wage because it conflicts with our free trade agreements? What about OSHA, will it be demolished to keep free trade going? Or the EPA? All that is possible, and at that point, assuming we are still a democracy, I see a new set of people sweeping into Congress and the White House who will pull us out of such agreements.

The thing that's interesting is this, those few nations that actually directly benefited from so called "Free Trade" actually used protectionism and other methods BEFORE they agreed to such agreements. Or they used their size to increase their bargaining power enough to protect some indigenous industries. Nations like China, India, Tawain, and South Korea are examples of that. Even their, they have free trade related problems, mostly in agriculture.

My concerns about Free Trade have almost nothing to do with sovereignty or nationalism, and everything to do with Human Rights. I have no problem with, let's say, buying a computer from an Indian company, or corn from a Mexican farmer, if they follow the same type of standards for worker's rights and other protections that are equal or exceed those that the United States follow. If the WTO is to continue existing then we need a WLO(World Labor Organization) to balance it out. If NAFTA is to continue existing, then we need to have the PEOPLE of the three nations in question run it, not our Corporations.

I go into more detail about NAFTA here, to be honest, I think it should be scrapped and replaced:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1064574

[sandnsea]

6. Economic Justice

I think we need a platform that defines the economy we are seeking that doesn't use the words of the free traders at all. It's too confusing, free trade, fair trade, global markets.

We're looking for economies of and for real people, bottom up, ending poverty, ending exploitation of resources and labor and the environment. Economic Justice.

[Lord Byron]

7. Kick