Populism Rising

Josh Patashnik over at The Plank takes Sen. Obama to task for using the NAFTA card against Hillary Clinton.

This is disappointing in large part because Obama's 2005 op-ed opposing CAFTA is a model of responsible populism. Obama explained carefully that he was voting against CAFTA not because he wanted to stop trade or globalization, but because the government wasn't doing enough to compensate the losers--a step that most introductory economics textbooks just sort of assume ends up happening, but usually doesn't.

I tend to agree with Josh about the tone of both Obama and Hillary in regards to free trade; both have become pander-bears. Whether it is because Edwards has dropped out and they want to get the Huey Long vote, or because they have been campaigning lately in states where trade issues are most important, I don't know; but clearly both have jumped on the pander-wagon. In fact, Sherrod Brown has been encouraging them to become more populist in order to get his endorsement/support in Ohio.

Obama's most egregious free-trade faux paux was late last year when he said, "I would stop the import of all toys from China. Now I have to say, that’s about 80 percent of toys that are being imported right now." A ridiculous proposition to be sure, and extremely unnecessary simply because of a few isolated instances of lead paint being used by a handful of manufacturers. The Greatest Generation was probably sucking on lead-paint flavored lolipops when they were kids, and many turned out alright. The briefest exposure to it is not worth a halt in trade with the biggest manufacturing country in the world.

Hillary has essentially backed down from her previous approval of trade agreements when her husband was in office. Now, she hasn't been really talking about trade issues because she doesn't have a leg to stand on when going head-to-head against Obama (at least from a populist standpoint). Instead, she is making (!rightwing talking point alert!) quasi-socialistic promises/rants against Obama, like when she said in Ohio "[s]peeches don't put food on the table. Speeches don't fill up your tank or fill your prescription or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night."

No doubt, speeches won't, and quite frankly I don't think most people want Hillary to be responsible for putting food on their table or gas in their tank. To be sure, some people rely on social welfare, and I believe in a strong social safety net; but most don't want the Government to provide those things for them, and it sounds as if Hillary is saying she will. They want to have the power (or perhaps be empowered) to do those things themselves...and I think she would do herself a favor by framing [God I hate that term] her argument in that manner.

Ultimately, I think both candidates ought to be careful about embracing populist rhetoric in the heat of the campaign, because neither are really populist. Both Hillary and Obama support some form of free trade, they just want more worker/environmental protections. Because ultimately, free trade (or fair trade) is a liberal position. I am a liberal globalist, and as such I believe it is wrong to try and horde our wealth to ourselves; it is our duty as good global citizens to enable the rest of the world to have access to our wealth...and if done correctly, it will actually increase our own.

See Also: Financial Times