Tom Barnett, who normally does an good job thinking in shades of grey, oversimplifies the CAFTA issue. He argues CAFTA=Free trade, Free trade=good, New Democrats oppose CAFTA, therefore New Dems = Bad. He also somehow implies the New Dems are anti-Hispanic by opposing CAFTA.
I'm definitely among the pro-free trade Democrats, but I'm very hesitant to support CAFTA (I'll explain my support in some other post, and I don't blame those opposing it). It's far from a perfect bill. While Barnett is correct to point out that Bill Clinton started the negotiations, Clinton didn't finish them. The New Dems who oppose CAFTA haven't turned protectionist, although that's how some on the right would like to portray them. The New Dems want free trade and feel that the president should renegotiate sections of CAFTA. Both the American people and the Central American countries could get a better deal than they're getting currently.
Barnett would know better than to simply accept a defense bill from the president without worrying about the details; why doesn't he worry about the details of trade bills? Would Barnett accept any bill the president labeled "free trade"? To test that theory, maybe PACOM should propose the 2005 Submarine Warfare Free Trade Act?
0 comments:
Post a Comment