Posted by
Bert Chapman on Tuesday, April 29, 2008 10:31:10 AM
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton demonstrate abysmal ignorance in their understanding of international economics by obsequiously pandering to the basest protectionist elements in their party. One thing I will give Bill Clinton credit for is his support of free trade agreements such as NAFTA during his presidency. Unfortunately, Hilary must have been to busy dodging imaginary sniper fire in Bosnia to learn from this lesson. Free trade gives American consumers more choice in the goods and services they purchase and makes those goods and servics available at lower prices. Free trade increases American living standards and the living standards of other countries allowing them to achieve economic growth and not need American or other international economic assistance.
If this protectionist rhetoric Obama and Clinton espouse during their campaigns becomes public policy it would have absolutely disastrous effects on our economy and the world economy. The day has long passed when we can make decisions about our economic policy that will not have ripple effects to the far corners of the world. If we renegotiate NAFTA, Canada and Mexico will impose retaliatory actions against U.S. exports. So, in all probablility, will other countries. Trade disputes between nations also affect other aspects of international relationships as well. Do Clinton and Obama think that if we whine about other countries trade policies that they will be willing to cooperate with us on environmental, energy, national security or other issues? Don't hold your breath waiting for an intelligent answer to this question by Clinton or Obama.
What John McCain should do is extoll the positive benefits and absolute necessity of free trade every chance he can. He needs to explain that when some jobs are lost due to evolving international economic and technological developments, that other jobs (often better ones) are created. Obama and Clinton's recent protectionist whimperings also demonstrate the need for our educational systems to promote the benefits of free trade to students from primary to collegiate levels. State economic development departments should work with state education departments, and consult with the Commerce Dept's International Trade Service, to develop curriculum promoting the benefits of free trade and the dangerous consequences of protectionism. Private sector companies that are heavily dependent on exporting should also work with these aforementioned government agencies to explain why open access to export markets is vital to their success.
We also have witnessed the disappointing spectacle of Congress refusing to approve the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has been a courageous fighter against the drug traffickers plaguing his country. Uribe is also a critical regional ally against the nefarious machinations of Venezuealan demagogue Hugo Chavez. However, because Nancy Pelosi and congressional Democrats don't like Colombian labor policies and Uribe's resolute stance against Chavez and narco traffickers, they have decided pandering to their unionist and protectionist base is more important than seeking to improve the economic competitiveness of Colombia or defeating that country's drug terrorists. Both Clinton and Obama's protectionist pandering demonstrates their appalling ignorance of international economics and politics and thunderously demonstrate that neither of them is intellectually equipped to be President or properly understand global trade and economic policy.