Post Scolds Hillary On Trade
Hillary Clinton announced her opposition to a free-trade deal with South Korea this weekend, citing concerns over reciprocity and an imbalance in existing trade. Today, the Washington Post editorial board scolds her for short-sightedness, and wonders what kind of pandering to both labor and manufacturing we can expect from her as President:
THERE ARE pluses and minuses, it's often said, to having a former first lady running for president. On the debit side, for example, is the oligarchical aura of two families passing the presidency back and forth for 24 or possibly 28 consecutive years. On the positive side is the experience Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) gained during eight years in the White House, experience that ought to translate into a broader national perspective than a senator or governor can attain.But has it? That's the question raised by Ms. Clinton's announcement over the weekend that she will oppose the free-trade agreement with South Korea -- and for the narrowest of special-interest reasons. It's hard to imagine an issue where the national and international benefits weigh so clearly and heavily on one side. Yet Ms. Clinton, sounding more auto salesman than statesman, has joined many of her Democratic colleagues in Congress in opting to jettison those benefits.
The United States and South Korea in April concluded 10 months of negotiations to sign what would be, if ratified, the most far-reaching trade agreement since the pact with Mexico and Canada that President Bill Clinton championed in 1993. It's a pact between the world's largest and 11th-largest economies that would benefit workers, farmers and companies on both sides. As a democracy with a strong trade union movement, South Korea doesn't pose the workers' rights challenges that vex unionists in agreements with poorer countries. This deal would open the Korean market to a wide array of U.S. agricultural, industrial and cultural products and services; in fact, the political risks in South Korea are far higher than here. And it would demonstrate U.S. commitment to a vital region at a time when China is steadily gaining ground.
Why does Clinton object to the deal? She objects to the fact that Koreans sell more cars in the US than the US does in Korea. Specifically, she says that the deal doesn't eliminate the "multitude of informal barriers" that keep American cars from selling widely in South Korea:
"Unless those barriers fall, American carmakers will face increased competition at home and won't get greater access to South Korea's market," she said. ..."While I value the strong relationship the United States enjoys with South Korea, I believe that this agreement is inherently unfair," Clinton said at an event hosted by the AFL-CIO labor confederation in Detroit, home of the U.S. car industry.
What informal barriers? The trade agreement forces Seoul to remove discriminatory tariffs and taxes on cars. As the Post points out, it gives us the right to end the deal if they don't keep their word. Is she complaining because South Koreans have a cultural tendency to buy vehicles made in South Korea -- sort of like the American labor movement's old Al Gore lullaby, "Look for the Union Label"? (Yes, I know Gore was joking, and so am I.)
This is what we can expect from a Democratic administration: protectionism and trade battles. John Edwards has already announced his opposition, and Barack Obama says he will study the agreement for a while before announcing a decision. The economic expansion that globalization has brought to the US and the world will founder on the shoals of a Democratic executive, especially if supported by a Democratic Congress. No trade will be free or fair enough, and we will fall back on inflationary and destructive applications of tariffs to fight trade wars with nations who should be our partners.
Worse, this insistence on imposing American labor restrictions on other nations will keep them from competing and developing their own industrial base. Besides the cultural arrogance that demands an American-style relationship between labor and management, that policy would price developing nations out of the manufacturing market -- which is what the unions want. That would leave other nations in poverty, without much hope of capital infusions necessary to lift their standards of living.
We need to ensure fairness in trade, but we need to ensure that trade continues to exist in a free-market environment. We cannot demand that South Koreans buy American; we can only present our goods without interference and let the consumers decide. The South Korean government has agreed to change what's in their control, and it's a good deal for everyone. If Hillary can't see that, then perhaps she needs to stay in the Senate.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on June 13, 2007 8:13 AM | Comments (13) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (13)
Posted by brooklyn | June 13, 2007 9:11 AM
It really is amazing, to consider this Country and the Democrat Party are seriously considering such a deceitful person to return to the White House.
Our Country deserves better...
Posted by Lightwave | June 13, 2007 9:12 AM
"We need to ensure fairness in trade, but we need to ensure that trade continues to exist in a free-market environment. We cannot demand that South Koreans buy American; we can only present our goods without interference and let the consumers decide. The South Korean government has agreed to change what's in their control, and it's a good deal for everyone. If Hillary can't see that, then perhaps she needs to stay in the Senate."
And while you're absolutely correct on this Ed, it's important to note the *reason* the NAFTA Democrats of the 90's are now tariff-happy protectionists today: The unions have all but disavowed them for NAFTA and they need the tariff money to implement their socialism. Tax tax tax tax tax tax and spend Dems!
All the Dems are talking up Socialism in '08. Universal health care (never mind the quality and the months of waiting to see a doctor), universal welfare, universal child care, universal state control of everything. They know they can't come out and ask for taxes to be raised and still expect to win in 08.
But tariffs on some Asian country? Sure, they're taking all our jobs! Never mind of course we'll lose more jobs as a result.
Posted by Nordeaster | June 13, 2007 9:26 AM
Sure ,lets keep trading with an oppresive China rather than boost trade, relations and the overall economy of one of our allies in the region.
Posted by NoDonkey | June 13, 2007 9:27 AM
I don't know why Americans buy American cars, much less why Koreans or anyone else would want them. The quality is just not there.
Besides, I'd rather buy another quality Volkswagen made by non-union US laborers, than a piece of Detroit junk, made by UAW workers who send a percentage of their check to the worthless and vile Democrat Party.
Posted by Carol Herman | June 13, 2007 10:44 AM
Hillary's not wrong. Korea is ONE NATION; not two. But the leadership north and south is divided between TWO DESPOTIC REGIMES.
You can't even bring in a toothbrush NOT made in Korea; into Korea!
Koreans who go back? Can't even bring in, as personal possessions, cars, and stuff bought in the USA.
For an unimportant piece of turf, all Korea represents is the STALEMATE actions of the UN. Not worth it.
But the real bon mot? Turns out the nasty guy from the north is really trafficking in nukes. Which makes it somewhat uneasy for the Chinese.
The real world? You'd be surprised. But the Chinese have a thorn up their ass.
And, we have no friends in Korea.
Though a bit better behaved than those Albanians. Who'll take the watch right off your wrist, as they shake your hands.
Too bad we don't learn much from what we see of the world.
Posted by Rovin | June 13, 2007 10:52 AM
It is not surprising to see Hillarys socialist policys and budget-busting entitlement programs that are so transparent. Dependency on government run programs are hardly a new philosophy for the Clinton regime. And, of course we all know how superior govt programs run compared to private enterprise-----right!
There is no longer room in a global economy for the Buchanan protectionist / isolationist society that would leave this nation handcuffed to compete globally.
Hillary's agenda is all about control and power-------not the future of nations trading in a fair and free market. Then, again, maybe she's just waiting for the South Korean "checks" to get deposited into her coffers before she changes (flip-flops) her mind.
Posted by Carol Herman | June 13, 2007 11:01 AM
Hillary's not wrong. Korea is ONE NATION; not two. But the leadership north and south is divided between TWO DESPOTIC REGIMES.
You can't even bring in a toothbrush NOT made in Korea; into Korea!
Koreans who go back? Can't even bring in, as personal possessions, cars, and stuff bought in the USA.
For an unimportant piece of turf, all Korea represents is the STALEMATE actions of the UN. Not worth it.
But the real bon mot? Turns out the nasty guy from the north is really trafficking in nukes. Which makes it somewhat uneasy for the Chinese.
The real world? You'd be surprised. But the Chinese have a thorn up their ass.
And, we have no friends in Korea.
Though a bit better behaved than those Albanians. Who'll take the watch right off your wrist, as they shake your hands.
Too bad we don't learn much from what we see of the world.
Posted by lexhamfox | June 13, 2007 11:31 AM
Carol, Korea has moved on since the times you reference. Ed, I agree that free trade benefits everyone and I really do despise the populist pandering that you highlight here but let's remember how the current Administration put into motion similar protectionist measures. America, like France, is ripe for reform and change in order to foster more efficient and competitive practices. Let's hope our election produces the same bold initiatives that are being put into motion in France. I suspect the electorate here aren't sufficiently alarmed yet to vote the right way on these things and remain vulnerable to the kind of positions you point out.
Posted by RBMN | June 13, 2007 11:33 AM
The time to worry is when other countries don't want our dollars in trade for their tangible goods.
During the Depression, I guess by the standard of some folks, our international trade balance would've been fantastic.
Posted by always right | June 13, 2007 11:44 AM
Sure, RBMN. That's when the compassionate Democrat party really took off.
Posted by deadrody | June 13, 2007 1:52 PM
I wonder if Senator Nimrod stopped to think for a second that WITH trade barriers, Japanese and South Korean cars are already well on their way to out-selling American made cars in the US ? And that maybe, just maybe, South Koreans don't want to buy American cars because they're junk ?
Posted by Adjoran | June 13, 2007 2:38 PM
Unions reflexively oppose free trade because it fosters competition which in turn forces companies to become more productive and efficient. Part of this efficiency is controlling costs, and the single biggest area of cost in most industries is labor and benefits.
When wages and benefits come under close scrutiny, it is far more difficult for companies to cede to union demands because they can no longer simply pass the added costs onto the consumer when competitors who refused the union demands could sell for less.
Economic efficiency is the nemesis of trade unionism, a concept which outlived its usefulness about half a century ago. In that, the unions are remarkably similar to the liberal Democrats.
Posted by Project Vote Smart | June 13, 2007 3:04 PM
Sen. Clinton’s voting record on trade issues can be found at: Sen. Clinton’s Voting Record
Sen. Clinton’s history of speeches on trade can be found at: Sen. Clinton’s Record of Speeches
Sen. Clinton’s ratings from special interest groups on trade issues can be found at: Sen. Clinton’s Interest Group Ratings
For more information on Sen. Clinton please visit Project Vote Smart or call our hotline at 1-888-VOTE-SMART.