Free trade and Republican voters
November 6th 2007 07:19
Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported the following:
Republican politicians talk about the virtues of reducing government regulations and facilitating free trade. They generally want the government to step aside and not interfere with the flow of products and services between countries. That sounds good in theory. Obviously, though, the Republican voters are increasingly disillusioned with what they've seen of free trade.
The term "free trade", while appealing, does not equate to "fair trade". We have signed a number of free trade agreements with a number of countries. How is it fair when those countries do not pay a living wage? American companies find themselves unable to compete and wind up firing workers in the US and sending those jobs overseas. Is that fair to the workers in the US? Is it fair to companies who want to keep jobs here but are unable to compete because of the wage differential?
Additionally, how is it fair when our trading partners don't have crucial environmental regulations in place? Yes, excessive regulations do interfere with a company's ability to compete. However, some minimal regulations are vitally necessary -- especially with regard to environmental concerns. Recently, we've had a huge problem with lead-tainted products being shipped to us from China. One of China's cost advantages is that they don't have stringent regulations. When that results in dangerous and poisonous products winding up on our stores' shelves, how is that good for the US? How is that fair?
Within the framework of our free trade agreements, our markets are largely open to our trading partners. We have a low tariff structure that makes it easy for them to compete against American-based companies. However, our trading partners' markets are rarely as open as our own. They restrict our ability to sell goods in their countries. There is little or no reciprocity with regard to open markets. Is that fair? No. No, it's not.
I remember when NAFTA was passed in the 1990's. Part of the rationale for its passage was that it would help create jobs in Mexico for Mexicans who would otherwise have come to the US illegally. What is the result of that effort? Well, many US companies did send their operations to Mexico, but we still have a huge influx of illegal immigrats who come to the US because they can't make a living wage in Mexico. Is that good for the US? Is that fair? No. It's not what we were promised and it's not good for our country.
So are Republican voters right to be skeptics on the notion of free trade? Yes they are. As it turns out, free trade is not really "free" at all. It's time for our nation's leaders to start seeking out opportunities for fair trade instead of just free trade. We need to find trading partners who understand the concept of "quid pro quo". We have been getting shorted on our end of the trade deals for too long. Our government needs to give our nation's companies, workers, and products a chance to compete equitably around the world. Certainly, that is not too much to ask.
Six in 10 Republicans in the poll agreed with a statement that free trade has been bad for the U.S. and said they would agree with a Republican candidate who favored tougher regulations to limit foreign imports. That represents a challenge for Republican candidates who generally echo Mr. Bush's calls for continued trade expansion, and reflects a substantial shift in sentiment from eight years ago.
Republican politicians talk about the virtues of reducing government regulations and facilitating free trade. They generally want the government to step aside and not interfere with the flow of products and services between countries. That sounds good in theory. Obviously, though, the Republican voters are increasingly disillusioned with what they've seen of free trade.
The term "free trade", while appealing, does not equate to "fair trade". We have signed a number of free trade agreements with a number of countries. How is it fair when those countries do not pay a living wage? American companies find themselves unable to compete and wind up firing workers in the US and sending those jobs overseas. Is that fair to the workers in the US? Is it fair to companies who want to keep jobs here but are unable to compete because of the wage differential?
Additionally, how is it fair when our trading partners don't have crucial environmental regulations in place? Yes, excessive regulations do interfere with a company's ability to compete. However, some minimal regulations are vitally necessary -- especially with regard to environmental concerns. Recently, we've had a huge problem with lead-tainted products being shipped to us from China. One of China's cost advantages is that they don't have stringent regulations. When that results in dangerous and poisonous products winding up on our stores' shelves, how is that good for the US? How is that fair?
Within the framework of our free trade agreements, our markets are largely open to our trading partners. We have a low tariff structure that makes it easy for them to compete against American-based companies. However, our trading partners' markets are rarely as open as our own. They restrict our ability to sell goods in their countries. There is little or no reciprocity with regard to open markets. Is that fair? No. No, it's not.
I remember when NAFTA was passed in the 1990's. Part of the rationale for its passage was that it would help create jobs in Mexico for Mexicans who would otherwise have come to the US illegally. What is the result of that effort? Well, many US companies did send their operations to Mexico, but we still have a huge influx of illegal immigrats who come to the US because they can't make a living wage in Mexico. Is that good for the US? Is that fair? No. It's not what we were promised and it's not good for our country.
So are Republican voters right to be skeptics on the notion of free trade? Yes they are. As it turns out, free trade is not really "free" at all. It's time for our nation's leaders to start seeking out opportunities for fair trade instead of just free trade. We need to find trading partners who understand the concept of "quid pro quo". We have been getting shorted on our end of the trade deals for too long. Our government needs to give our nation's companies, workers, and products a chance to compete equitably around the world. Certainly, that is not too much to ask.
| 58 |
| Vote |
