How to be a pacesetter on trade

Did anyone see the debates last night? I gotta say, after Monday's statement from the Edwards' campaign, you could really tell many of the candidates taking it to the next level on trade policy. Read Edwards' messaging from Monday, followed by other candidates' messaging from last night, and you'll see that a lot has been cribbed.

In one category of remarks were Edwards’ trade critiques that other candidates gladly also made. This includes reforming trade adjustment assistance (a perennial DC favorite), labor standards, and hiring some trade prosecutors to “enforce” the agreements on the books. Some of these are fine ideas, but they are unlikely to be either meaningfully implemented or to affect the nature of the U.S. workplace in a fundamental manner. Then there were the category of remarks on currency, tax codes and food safety, which are a little gutsier because they do challenge the corporate bottom line. But some of the candidates followed Edwards' lead on these as well.

So what was new in the debate? For me, the clearest example was Edwards' challenge of corporate power per se, which was picked up on by Obama: 

• Edwards: "NAFTA was written by insiders in all three countries, and it served their interests - not the interests of regular workers."
• Obama: "And the problem that we’ve had is, is that we’ve had corporate lobbyists, oftentimes involved in negotiating these trade agreements, but the AFL-CIO hasn’t been involved; ordinary working people have not been involved. And we’ve got to make sure that our agreements are good for everybody, because globalization right now is creating winners and losers. But the problem is, it’s the same winners and the same losers each and every time."

Obama was the only other candidate that picked up on Edwards' point. Many candidates talked about their strong support for labor legislation, picket lines and the like. But only Edwards and Obama were willing to draw those class lines, suggesting corporations are pushing for one interest in trade policy, while workers are pushing for another, and then suggesting that they would take the side of the workers.

But there were areas where even Edwards was unwilling to go. On the question of whether to scrap or fix NAFTA, Edwards said “It needs to be fixed,” Obama said he would try to “amend” NAFTA, and Dodd and Biden appeared to commit to “modify” and “change” NAFTA. Kucinich had stronger answers that played well with the audience:

• Kucinich: "You asked a direct question. I think it deserves a direct answer. In my first week in office, I will notify Mexico and Canada that the United States is withdrawing from NAFTA. I will notify the WTO we’re withdrawing from the WTO. (Applause.) We need a president who knows what the right thing is to do the first time, not in retrospect. And I think that we need to go back to trade -- excuse me -- we need to go forward to trade that’s based on workers’ rights, human rights and environmental quality principles. No one else on this stage could give a direct answer because they don’t intend to scrap NAFTA. We’re going to be stuck with it. And I’m your candidate if you want to get out of NAFTA. (Applause.) Let’s hear it. Do you want out of NAFTA? (Cheers, applause.) Do you want out of the WTO? (Cheers, applause.) Tell these candidates. MR. OLBERMANN: Congressman --  REP. KUCINICH: Listen to the workers. Listen to the words of the workers of America. (Cheers, applause.) "

I think this is the challenge for Edwards - or whoever wants to be the pacesetter on trade in the Democratic primaries - going forward.

1. There are a host of admirable ways to help American workers and consumers deal with the fall-out from trade. But Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Obama and Richardson are willing to co-opt almost any one of these policies that Edwards has proposed, or indeed have already been promoting them for years. Any differences that exist between his prescriptions and theirs cannot be articulated in 30 or 60 second soundbytes. So it's great to include these items in the detailed plans, but as the debate showed last night, it doesn't differentiate a fair trader's candidacy from the others.

2. Continue to push the balance of power critique, because that is something that is a differentiating factor.

3. Have easier answers to questions about fundamentally flawed institutions like the NAFTA and WTO. Kucinich differentiates himself by being willing to say "scrap" 'em. The Edwards campaign clearly understands the larger systemic critique of these institutions. If they aren't willing to say "scrap it," can they say "WTO: shrink or sink"? Can they say, food imports are only allowed for countries that have EQUAL food safety systems (while pushing for better than we have currently as well)? Can they say, no more NAFTAs, no more Fast Track?  Can they say, we can have plenty of trade without having to have corporate rights agreements written by corporate lobbyists?