Sallie James writes:

John Edwards had by far the worst trade policy proposals of the front-running Democrats. It says something good about America that Mr Edwards’ brand of populist nonsense has been rejected by the primary voters.

No way. Find me one piece of evidence that voters are choosing to prefer Clinton and Obama due to their trade policy proposals.

Or, as Adam Posen put it:

International economic issues will never be the decisive factor in a US national election, and in fact will be a lower priority on any candidate’s or new president’s agenda than discussions of Iraq withdrawal, broadening health care, tax reform, repairing America’s standing in the world, and decreasing partisanship in Washington.

Adam Posen writes:

Unfortunately, a new US president of either party is likely to be more antiglobalization, or at least take a more defensive approach to it, than either of her or his predecessors was.

There are many reasons why. First, now that unemployment is rising, the US workforce has finally reacted to the economic insecurity caused by its lack of health insurance and job protections, all curtailed further by the Bush administration. Second, both parties have moved away from the center, especially in Congress, and it was always a coalition of moderates from both parties which supported trade liberalization. Third, the foreign policy misadventures of the Bush administration have fed isolationism and fear of the openness among the US electorate. Fourth, in the United States just as in Western Europe, there is a seductive—though fundamentally unfounded—belief that the economic emergence of China, India, Brazil, and the former Soviet Union has shifted the relative advantages of globalization away from the rich countries, so their approach to trade and investment should be more defensive.

American antiglobalization, however, will take different forms depending upon which party captures the White House. If a Democrat wins, there will be proposals to impose “minimum labor and environmental standards” on future trade agreements, and perhaps unilaterally on current trading partners. While these can be benignly motivated, in practice they will likely be hijacked by outright protectionist interests and used as an excuse to block imports or trade deals. In any event, such measures are likely to escalate a number of conflicts with major emerging markets and interfere with economic growth in the developing world…

If a Republican, particularly from the conservative majority wing of the party, wins the White House, then the new American antiglobalization stance will likely first take the form of anti-immigration measures…

Initially, such a Republican anti-immigration stance will be less directly disruptive of the global trading system, and less broadly confrontational with the developing world, than the Democratic labor standards for trade agreements would be. Ultimately, however, it will be more harmful to the US economy, which is increasingly short of labor at both the high- and low-ends of the skills distribution, will be even more encouraging of isolationist sentiment, and will be more likely to divide the United States from the rest of advanced economies as well as from it developing neighbors…

[W]hile outright protectionism and head-on assaults on economic integration thankfully are not in the cards, and whoever succeeds George Bush will inherently be an improvement in most areas, the United States probably will be moving backwards on globalization initially in the next administration.

Sallie James thinks there shouldn’t be trade adjustment assistance without trade liberalization.

The Economist has said that Barack Obama has free trade instincts, but his staffers don’t seem to be on the same page. Here’s a headline they circulated to reporters:

HILLARY CLINTON (D-PUNJAB)’S PERSONAL FINANCIAL AND POLITICAL TIES TO INDIA

The Clintons have reaped significant financial rewards from their relationship with the Indian community, both in their personal finances and Hillary’s campaign fundraising. Hillary Clinton, who is the co-chair of the Senate India Caucus, has drawn criticism from anti-offshoring groups for her vocal support of Indian business and unwillingness to protect American jobs. Bill Clinton has invested tens of thousands of dollars in an Indian bill payment company, while Hillary Clinton has taken tens of thousands from companies that outsource jobs to India. Workers who have been laid off in upstate New York might not think that her recent joke that she could be elected to the Senate seat in Punjab is that funny.

Obama has apologized for the memo, but he ought to also explain why the zero-sum, ‘us vs them’ perspective on outsourcing embodied in the memo is wrong.

WaPo:

[Hilary Clinton] will oppose the free-trade agreement with South Korea — and for the narrowest of special-interest reasons… Ms. Clinton objects that South Korean manufacturers sell many more cars here than do American carmakers over there. Never mind that the agreement requires Korea to remove discriminatory tariffs and taxes on U.S. cars; never mind that U.S. tariffs on Korean cars can “snap back” if Korea doesn’t keep its word. Not good enough, says Ms. Clinton. What more could she have wanted for Detroit? She won’t say.

Via Fredrik Erixon.

Jagdish Bhagwati:

Bipartisanship is no guarantor of virtue. The proponents of the compromise also make a serious mistake when they assume that domestic consensus on trade policy is a sufficient condition for further trade liberalisation. Trade needs at least two parties. Unless your trading partners agree with what you propose, your own consensus is well nigh useless. The problem is that, except for bilateral agreements with small countries (or groups of countries, such as Central America) with little political power or with over­riding security interests, the developing-country trading partners of the US are generally opposed to the inclusion of labour (and other non-trade-related) requirements in trade treaties, agreements and institutions…

[T]he pursuit of labour standards in the American political landscape today reflects not altruism and empathy, but fear and self-interest. The Democrats who swept into Congress on anti-trade platforms typically fought their campaigns by arguing that competition with countries with lower standards was harmful to the working and middle classes in the US…

Was this compromise necessary for the renewal of the president’s fast-track trade authority? I doubt it. Think hard: if fast-track were not renewed by Congress, the US would find it impossible to pursue even bilateral agreements, not just the multilateral Doha round. But every other nation would be free to pursue these bilateral deals. So, the US would be increasingly handicapped in world trade. But if the administration stood firm, rejecting the compromise over labour standards, it is surely possible that a few responsible Democrats could be found who would vote for new fast-track authority, purely in America’s interest. Surely, it is not beyond the capacity of Mr Paulson to play this card with success?

If you lack FT access, Mark Thoma has a longer excerpt.

FT via HTWW:

The situation has been complicated by the fact that few people within the Bush administration understand what the World Bank does, says another official. This has meant that the administration’s shifting calculations have been mostly guided by day-to-day political deliberations rather than by an assessment of what would be in the longer-term interest of the US.

Good grief.

Where do the Democratic frontrunners stand on trade?

To counter this establishment reputation, Mrs Clinton has reached out to the left. Dick Gephardt, a former majority leader of the House of Representatives and a well-known trade sceptic, is an adviser. Mrs Clinton’s trade rhetoric has been among the toughest of the candidates. She has talked of “a little timeout” before new trade deals are made—exactly what the party’s left has been asking for.

Mr Obama has carefully avoided any such rhetoric. His trade strategy, like much else, is still short on details. Like Mrs Clinton, he voted against the free-trade agreement with Central America. But judging by his latest book, Mr Obama is more concerned with helping people deal with globalisation than trying to slow it down. One trade wonk who knows both candidates says that Mr Obama is more of an instinctive free-trader than Mrs Clinton.

Economist story here.

Where do the Democratic frontrunners stand on trade?

To counter this establishment reputation, Mrs Clinton has reached out to the left. Dick Gephardt, a former majority leader of the House of Representatives and a well-known trade sceptic, is an adviser. Mrs Clinton’s trade rhetoric has been among the toughest of the candidates. She has talked of “a little timeout” before new trade deals are made—exactly what the party’s left has been asking for.

Mr Obama has carefully avoided any such rhetoric. His trade strategy, like much else, is still short on details. Like Mrs Clinton, he voted against the free-trade agreement with Central America. But judging by his latest book, Mr Obama is more concerned with helping people deal with globalisation than trying to slow it down. One trade wonk who knows both candidates says that Mr Obama is more of an instinctive free-trader than Mrs Clinton.

Economist story here.

Where do the Democratic frontrunners stand on trade?

To counter this establishment reputation, Mrs Clinton has reached out to the left. Dick Gephardt, a former majority leader of the House of Representatives and a well-known trade sceptic, is an adviser. Mrs Clinton’s trade rhetoric has been among the toughest of the candidates. She has talked of “a little timeout” before new trade deals are made—exactly what the party’s left has been asking for.

Mr Obama has carefully avoided any such rhetoric. His trade strategy, like much else, is still short on details. Like Mrs Clinton, he voted against the free-trade agreement with Central America. But judging by his latest book, Mr Obama is more concerned with helping people deal with globalisation than trying to slow it down. One trade wonk who knows both candidates says that Mr Obama is more of an instinctive free-trader than Mrs Clinton.

Economist story here.