Bush calls Dems' bluff on trade

David Broder:

President Bush sent the Democrats an important signal last week when he reminded reporters that Congress will have to decide this fall whether to sign off on trade deals with two more Latin American countries, Peru and Panama.

In May, the administration accepted the demands of Democratic congressional leaders to enforce labor and environmental standards as integral parts of those free-trade agreements -- ending a long stalemate on those questions.

But some liberal and labor Democrats are still voicing objections to the deals, and Rep. Sandy Levin, chairman of the House trade subcommittee, has just come back from a visit to Peru to make sure that its terms are being carried out.

The president was very clear about his views, saying that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab "will continue to work with the [Democratic] leadership and remind them of the importance of these trade bills. And they're now in charge of the Congress, and they'll have a chance to prove whether or not they believe in opening these markets. . . . It would be a huge mistake for the country if they don't."

But as the president acknowledged, the protectionist sentiment he has long opposed appears to be rising in Congress -- and among the Democratic presidential candidates as well.

...

No kidding. As Helen Cooper points out in the NY Times, trade has become the "third rail" for Democrats on the campaign trail in courting the ever shrinking union vote.

THE Democratic presidential candidates all sounded the same critical note about the North American Free Trade Agreement when they debated in front of an audience of union members in Chicago on Tuesday.

“Well, I had said that for many years that, you know, Nafta and the way it’s been implemented has hurt a lot of American workers,” said Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, conveniently not mentioning that her husband wrapped up the trade pact’s negotiations and pushed it through Congress when he was president.

“We should never have another trade agreement unless it enforces labor protection, environmental standards and job safety,” chimed in Gov. Bill Richardson, who as a Democratic whip in the House in 1993 helped Mr. Clinton win approval of the trade deal with Mexico and Canada.

There has always been a huge space between what candidates say when they’re running for president and what they actually do in office. When it comes to trade, that space is bigger than on most issues — particularly for Democrats. Far more than their Republican counterparts, Democratic presidential candidates rely on labor unions — committed free trade foes — for money and manpower.

...

The trouble with Democrats is that the voters are not very smart. They don't understand the importance of trade and how it actually benefits the country. This leaves the candidates with having to pander and mislead their own constituents in order to secure the nomination. It has made Democrats the experts at the politics of fraud. You will see a similar disconnect between their rhetoric and what they would actually do in Iraq. It comes from having an unintelligent voter base that thinks it is smart.

As Broder points out, the President has given them what they asked for on the trade bills which means they will have to vote on the agreements and then have to explain that vote to those for whom no explanation is adequate.