Skip to main content

RealClearPolitics: The Democrats Dither on Trade

The backtracking on free trade in South America has been among the frustrating news for me coming out of the beltway. Considering how the economic downturns in Latin America affect us through the increase in illegal immigration, I would think more Americans would be fighting for this one as loudly as they fought for the failed Immigration legislation.

Democratic presidential candidates like to talk about "turning a page" in America's relations with the rest of the world. But what does that mean, in practical terms, on bread-and-butter issues such as trade? Are today's Democrats a party of open markets and economic development, or of market restrictions and job protection?

The answer is that leading Democrats seem to want both -- they favor economic development overseas but not at the cost of U.S. jobs. That sounds like a coherent position until you begin to look carefully at the political choices in Latin America, a part of the world where U.S. trade policies are tightly interwoven with national security interests. Tougher trade policies could embolden the anti-Americanism embodied by Venezuela's rabble-rousing president, Hugo Ch├ívez. 

The problem is that most Democrats (and many Republicans) lack the basic clear understanding of economic principles. Trade is not a zero-sum game. Economic development overseas does not translate in less jobs in the US. And, David certainly has a point that taking steps back in our Trade agreements would only embolden Chavez and the rest of the socialist crazies.

So what are the Democrats doing about trade? Well, they dither. Democratic leaders in Congress say they may bring trade agreements with Panama and Peru up for a vote this fall, after gaining concessions on workers' rights and the environment. As for the Colombia agreement, it appears dead for this year. The Democratic presidential candidates, meanwhile, are scurrying to follow the party's base, rather than trying to lead it, on trade. The Democrats want to turn a page, but in the case of Latin America, they may be turning it backward.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Communism: Good Money for the "El Viejo"

I guess Fidel Castro is doing ok. Forbes lists Castro as one of the richest in the world, right up there with the Queen of England. I bet he didn't like the attention. It was hard to figure it out, but it seems they managed to throw some numbers together.
In the past, we have relied on a percentage of Cuba's gross domestic product to estimate Fidel Castro's fortune. This year we have used more traditional valuation methods, comparing state-owned assets Castro is assumed to control with comparable publicly traded companies. A reasonable discount was then applied to compensate for the obvious disclosure issues.

Podcast: Talking GOP Debate and No Child Left Behind

Click here to listen to the MP3 audio of the discussion between Michel Martin, Stephen Henderson and myself on the GOP debate, and Bush's push for No Child Left Behind. The segment on the new gospel music competition reality show is a great segment -- check it out as well. Tell Me More, October 12, 2007 · This week, GOP presidential contenders met for a debate in Dearborn, Michigan. Meanwhile, President Bush was stumping for reauthorization of the education bill, "No Child Left Behind." In this week's Political Chat, hear insights from political blogger Josue Sierra and Stephen Henderson, Deputy Editorial Page Editor at the Detroit Free Press.

You can listen on the NPR website right here.


Related Posts:
- On Air: Talking GOP Debate and No Child Left Behind
- GOP Economy Debate


Other Posts of Interest:
- Conference for Minority Journalists of Faith Cross posted at:
http://josue.townhall.com/g/539550d0-6e62-45a9-b375-f9d534488f25

Victory for Life -- Court backs military on abortion coverage

Great news being reported on the Chicago Tribune. Surprisingly, a decision was handed down in favor of life. I find the quote facinating. These days, one could hardly believe such statement would come from a judge--a federal one of all things.
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA -- A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that military medical benefits should cover abortions only when a mother's life is at risk.

The 3-0 ruling by a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came in the case of a Navy sailor's wife whose fetus had a fatal birth defect. She had an abortion five months into her pregnancy.

She filed a lawsuit claiming an armed forces health plan owed her $3,000 for the procedure. The government argued that refusing to cover such services "furthers the government's interest in protecting human life in general and promoting respect for life."Tags: , , ,