Trade and the North American Free Trade Agreement have been increasingly discussed among the candidates in this year’s presidential election during this time of growing economic uncertainty.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has not expressed a desire to amend the original free trade agreement, said Lori Kletzer, a professor of economics at UC Santa Cruz.
Both Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Sen. Barack Obama. D-Ill., have criticized NAFTA for resulting in the loss of jobs for American workers and supporting trade that fosters poor working conditions and environmental standards, Kletzer said.
Both of the Democratic candidates indicated that they would work to amend NAFTA to ensure that the industries in Mexico being supported by trade met standards within the agreement to protect against pollution and human rights violations, Kletzer added.
NAFTA, a trade agreement involving the U.S., Canada and Mexico designed to lower trade barriers and increase the flow of goods across the continent, was passed through Congress in 1994. It originated out of a previous agreement between the U.S. and Canada, Kletzer said.
“NAFTA was created out of a sense that barriers to trade are a bad thing for individuals within countries,” Kletzer added.
Countries enter into trade agreements to increase the welfare of their citizens and industries by allowing for an increase in trade and a laissez-faire economic policy.
But, opponents of free trade worry that NAFTA encourages low standards for working conditions and environmental protection in Mexico or results in the loss of American jobs as companies choose to produce their goods in cheaper arenas.
David Karol, a political science professor at UC Berkeley, said he thinks both of the Democratic candidates are criticizing the trade agreement in part to appease concerned members of labor unions and environmentalists groups, two of their main constituencies.
The political importance of NAFTA can be attributed to growing concerns about the U.S. economy and trade. He said NAFTA, as the United States’ most high-profile trade agreement, is somewhat symbolic of greater distress about the consequences of globalization on the environment and workers in both developed and developing countries, Karol said. Many Americans see NAFTA as the most tangible and relevant representation of free trade and an interconnected economy.
“Democrats in general have become more skeptical of trade and trade agreements as they have been negotiated and implemented,” Karol said. He also said disagreements between the opinions of political and economic experts and the general public on the issue of trade adds to the controversy.
“The public in general is not totally sold on the idea that reducing trade barriers is always a good thing,” he added.
Many Americans feel that facilitating overseas trade could increase the vulnerability of American workers.
Concern about NAFTA among many American industrial workers has led to the heightened importance of the issue in campaigns in manufacturing states such as Ohio or Pennsylvania.
“The Democratic candidates are really struggling with each other to win primaries in traditional industrial manufacturing states,” Kletzer said. She added that they have criticized NAFTA to win the votes of many who are angry and anxious as a result of industrial unemployment.
Karol said the issue of trade has also given each candidate the opportunity to criticize the other.
Though Obama has criticized Clinton for previously supporting NAFTA during her husband’s administration, she claims that though she did not publicly oppose it as part of his administration, she did not provide much internal support.
The indication of Obama’s economic advisors to Canadian officials before the Ohio primary that sentiment against NAFTA was primarily political also led to critique of the strength of his position.
The issue has not been as relevant to McCain’s campaign because he continues to support free trade, Kletzer said.
“McCain believes that NAFTA has been good for the United States and (that) it has been good for our partners in this treaty, helped create jobs and continued to further our economy and the economy of our partners,” said Hector Barajas, communication director for the California Republican Party.
Many of those in support of NAFTA feel it will expand industries in all three countries and could decrease immigration from Mexico to the United States by improving the Mexican economy, Barajas said.
Barajas also said he believes Republican voters will continue to support policies such as NAFTA that foster economic growth by facilitating trade and providing the United States with more trading partners.
But, despite their differing positions, it is likely that none of the three candidates would bring major changes to NAFTA, Karol said.
He added that all of the presidents since Franklin Delano Roosevelt have supported free trade. Though the Democratic candidates would likely have to make symbolic changes to the agreement to follow through on their campaign, he said, it would be a major shift in public policy for a president to completely reverse the trend of support for free trade.
“There is this protectionist rhetoric on the part of Clinton and Obama, but it would still surprise me if they were really to be as protectionist in office as they have been on the campaign trail,” Karol said.
He added that he thinks McCain would encounter resistance about his policies regarding free trade from the likely Democratic majority in Congress if he were elected.