What does the future hold for US trade policy? That's no easy question to answer. While the major presidential candidates have been gleefully bashing each other over Medicare, Internet taxes, and what do with the budget surplus, they have been conspicuously silent about important trade issues.
That silence contrasts sharply with the popular media buzz. Last December's Seattle mayhem spawned countless US editorials and commentary columns debating the merits of free trade, globalization, and the World Trade Organization. Pundits continue to fill the airwaves with dire warnings of a "backlash against trade."
The future American president will hold enormous sway over the direction of US trade policy, so it's critical to know where he stands. But there has been nary a peep over trade matters during the recent presidential debates. Should we conclude that all of the candidates agree?
Not necessarily. True, there is a general consensus among presidential aspirants that "trade is good." However, the leading candidates differ on specifics, most notably on the need to link trade to labor and environmental standards.
First, the good news: it's exceedingly unlikely that an administration headed by one of the four major candidates -- George W. Bush Jr., John McCain, Al Gore or Bill Bradley -- would lead to a major reorientation of US trade policy. Only Reform party candidate Pat Buchanan has promised to put an anti-trade agenda at the top of his list of priorities. Buchanan's chances of success, however, are slim.
But even seemingly small changes to US trade policy could lead to difficulties down the road. The most troubling rhetoric in this regard has come from Democratic frontrunner Al Gore, who is desperately seeking a way to avoid antagonizing organized labor before the November elections. The AFL-CIO, America's largest labor union, has made fighting new trade initiatives its top priority. Indeed, AFL-CIO president John Sweeney recently threatened to "do whatever it takes" to block permanent NTR for China.
Gore needn't worry; anti-trade democrats really don't have anyplace to go. Gore's only challenger for the Democratic nomination, Bill Bradley, is a self-styled free trader. Green candidates will never be taken seriously. And to back Pat Buchanan would be to back a relatively high-profile loser, effectively handing the presidency to a pro-trade Republican such as Bush or McCain. Since Gore is the only candidate likely to support at least marginally protectionist union-backed legislation, he can pretty much count on their support at the end of the day.
Moreover, many union members work in export sectors and generally support open trade. And nearly half of America's 17 million union members are employed in the public sector and thus largely immune from import pressures. The numbers speak for themselves: organized labor is giving far more to Gore than any other candidate.
Bill Bradley has also been sounding a bit more protectionist these days, but like Gore, his "get tough" stance would likely morph into Clinton-style internationalism if he were elected. Bradley was a key advocate of both the WTO and the North American Free Trade Agreement. And he continuities to praise globalization, which he credits with "expanding the economy" through trade. Realistically, however, a Bradley win looks highly improbable at this point.
RSS