Why can't Obama just get on the correct side of this issue...

Submitted by John on Wed, 07/30/2008 - 1:42pm. Tags:

Economics and Business

I support free trade....or at least as free as possible. If two competing measures over trade come up in Congress, it's 99.9% likely that I'll support the measure which nets free-ER trade than the status quo...even when the option of Free-ER trade in some managed and messy trade agreement like NAFTA or CAFTA. Why? Because if the option is NAFTA or the maintenance of barriers or more barriers, I'll side with NAFTA. If it's between NAFTA and the abolition of all tariffs, I'll choose the latter (but that never seems to be the choice, sadly).

Anyway, Cato has a new article up by Daniel Griswold which takes a closer look at the contrasting trade policies and records of McCain and Obama.

Says Griswold:

McCain describes himself as an unabashed free trader, and his record in Congress proves it. McCain has voted the free-trade position on almost 90 percent of the major trade bills that have come before the Senate in the past 15 years.

on Obama,

Obama has embraced a far more skeptical view of trade. Since joining the Senate in 2005, he has supported free trade on four of 11 major votes. He voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement and in support of the China currency tariffs. He supported the 2008 farm bill and opposes the Colombia Free Trade Agreement...he supported the Oman and Peru pacts. And in contrast to McCain, Obama actually wants to loosen the failed, 48-year-old trade and travel embargo against Cuba.

Neither is perfect but McCain seems the better man, in general, on the issue. That's a shame. And Obama's probably making his advisers cringe back stage. In taking these stances, Obama is simply playing to short-sighted and tiny yet powerful special interests who have the nice sounding sophisms on their side...and little else.

Protectionists presidential haven't won the WH since...well I don't even know. Clearly, while being a easy issue to stir up emotions on the stump, it's not winning elections. So why bother? McCain isn't going to win or lose because of trade and neither will Obama...so, again, why bother? It's the wrong side of the issue to be on. PERIOD.

Clinton was on the right side of the issue and it's a shame that Dems since have recoiled from it.

COncludes Griswold:

Obama and fellow Democrats like to point to the economic boom of the 1990s while rejecting the Clinton trade agenda that helped to fuel that growth.

The bipartisan policy of trade expansion has served America's broader interests for the past half century. If Barack Obama wants to polish his presidential credentials, he should do the same.

Yes. Do the right thing, Barack. Of course, he may just be posturing and planning to do the right thing once in office if he wins. So why weasel around if that's the case? Obama should be using his unique position and popularity with Dems and independents to voice the RIGHT message, not the juicy, pandering one. Come on, Barack, be more like Bill.