McCain is more enthusiastic about the benefits of trade than Obama, but will Obama be able to work more productively with the next Congress? Odds are that that Congress will be more skeptical about the benefits of foreign trade than this one.
The Economist is comparing the two candidates in a series of profiles. This week's deals with economics. On trade:
Mr McCain’s support for free trade is consistent and uncomplicated. According to the Cato Institute, a conservative think-tank, he has voted in favour of lower barriers on 88% of the 40 major trade bills he has faced since 1993. Mr Obama has done so on just 36% of the 11 he has faced since joining the Senate in 2005. Mr McCain voted for the Central America Free Trade Agreement and supports the pacts with South Korea and Colombia that the administration has signed but the Senate has not yet ratified....
Obama on the other hand:
...Mr Obama opposed all three and has talked of renegotiating NAFTA, America’s free-trade agreement with Mexico and Canada, to insert labour and environmental standards.
In his view, free trade can advance only once workers no longer feel their rights and wages are threatened by it: “There is nothing protectionist about demanding that trade spreads the benefits of globalisation as broadly as possible,” he says. His advisers claim Mr Obama is more likely to get trade agreements approved than Mr McCain because he is more willing to link them to labour rights, environment protection and worker retraining. Mr Obama also wants to strengthen unions, by for example allowing recognition of a union without a vote if enough workers have signed union cards (Mr McCain opposes this). But a rejuvenated labour movement may be a stronger opponent to free trade, and other countries may reject trade pacts with too many conditions.
Its likely that the next president will be lucky to preserve what we have, much less make progress:
Even if no new agreements are signed, the next president will play a crucial role in responding to protectionist pressure from workers, companies and their backers in Congress. Mr McCain’s history, which includes opposition to farm and ethanol subsidies, suggests he will oppose such pressure. Mr Obama, however, has seldom gone against his party on trade (or anything else). At a recent conference, campaign advisers were asked whether their candidates would veto a protectionist bill from Congress. The McCain adviser, Kevin Hassett, said yes. The Obama man, Gene Sperling, said this: “If Senator Obama believes that a bill was going to be bad for jobs or for the economy, he would veto it.”
Both men would be likely to make full use of the threat of congressional action as a lever to extract concessions from trading partners—as the Bush administration did in persuading China to let its currency rise. Historically, presidential candidates become free traders once in office, according to Douglas Irwin, a trade historian at Dartmouth College. Trade deals are a good way of cementing alliances; and they make excellent photo opportunities.
In the end, the fate of free trade in the election hangs on this question: is it more likely to advance under an unabashed advocate like Mr McCain, or a sceptic like Mr Obama who fancies himself better able to sell it to his fellow sceptics? To free-traders, trusting in Mr Obama requires a lot more faith.
Comments