Sebastian Mallaby, abridged:

The two parties have opposing attitudes on the subject of trade: Republicans see it as a source of growth, Democrats as a source of inequality. This split is undermining the U.S. ability to play its traditional postwar role in driving global trade liberalization. And if anti-trade Democrats can win elections when unemployment stands at 4.4 percent, they may do even better next time…

[T]he real reason Democrats oppose trade has little to do with foreigners’ stance on union rights or endangered species and a lot to do with the fact that trade harms some U.S. workers… So labor and environmental clauses will never reconcile Democrats to trade. To forge a bipartisan consensus, we need a different approach. Here is a three-part formula.

First, Democrats need to be honest about development in the poor world. It’s wrong to pretend that labor regulations, whether inserted in trade agreements or adopted by governments, are a powerful engine of rising living standards in developing countries…

Republicans need to get serious about the fact that, since 1980 or so, real incomes for the majority of Americans have stagnated. Republicans cannot expect support for trade unless they do more to compensate workers who get hit by globalization. They should be working with Democrats to improve the social safety net, linking progress on that front to continued trade liberalization.

Finally, both parties should cooperate on overhauling the nation’s farm program, which comes up for renewal next year…

Of course, it’s a long shot…