There’s always been a populist strain on the right that has distrusted free trade, blaming all manner of economic ills on globalization. I think they are fundamentally wrong. Free markets work and have made us increasingly prosperous. Government imposed limits on markets seeking to “protect” jobs only end up wasting resources in a foolish attempt to preserve inefficient businesses or obsolete sectors.
The arguments in favor of free trade are so convincing that I support Milton Friedman’s preference even for unilateral free trade. If other nations are shooting themselves in the foot in a misguided attempt at “protecting” something, then we should let them, not emulate them.
But there’s legitimate debate that can be had about the value of free markets, and clearly views on the subject don’t entirely cleave along normal ideological lines.
Unfortunately, such a debate is not what we are seeing over the question of trade promotion authority (TPA). Instead, largely left-wing opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is waging a proxy battle over the actual free trade agreement (likely because the free market side has been winning for decades) by appealing to paranoid conservatives who might otherwise support free trade. They are attempting to prevent the TPP not by winning a debate about the merits of trade (or from the other side by showing its a failed effort at implementing market freedom), but by exploiting right-wing distrust of the president and sabotaging fast-track authority.
Contrary to popular assertions, TPA or fast-track authority does not provide any new power to the President, who is Constitutionally authorized to negotiate treaties and international agreements. Nor does it in any way limit Congresses Constitutional power to approve treaties, or if necessary to write enabling legislation. All TPA does is allow the US to negotiate in good faith overseas by ensuring an up or down vote on any reached agreements.
Imagine trying to enact an agreement among numerous nations where each, after agreeing in principle among their chief negotiators, returned home only to have their various legislative bodies attach their own revisions and changes. There would be a different version for every nation, and they’d be impossible to reconcile. That’s simply not a practical system.
At the same time, TPA constrains the executive by requiring it follow certain guidelines during the negotiation, and thus making it more likely to return a favorable bill that can meet Congressional approval.
Unfortunately, the waters among conservatives have been hopeless muddied regarding TPA. It is a necessary tool for enacting multinational agreements, but it doesn’t have anything to do one way or another with the Trans-Pacific Partnership specifically. Opponents of TPP are free even with TPA in place to vote against the bill.
Unfortunately, TPP’s opposition has succeeded in recruiting Republican allies by fear-mongering about fast-track authority, leading to the popularity of meaningless jibberish like “Obamatrade,” as if he’s somehow invented the concept of free trade agreements, and complaining about a lack of access to agreements that don’t yet exist in finished form. Does anyone really imagine an agreement could be negotiated if every incomplete version was shared? It would immediately get bogged down in special interest haggling and media fear-mongering, with the result being more barriers to trade and therefore costly goods and a weaker economy.
Of course the public should know what is in the Trans-Pacific Partnership before it is passed. Once the potential agreement is complete it must be made available well in advance of a vote, so that the public has time to react and express their wishes to their representatives. Congress, and not President Obama, in turn have the final say in whether or not it is good for America. There should be nothing upsetting about that basic process for conservatives and libertarians.
Rather, believers in free markets should welcome the establishment of a system that makes it easier to reach agreements that liberalize markets. That’s all TPA does. It doesn’t mean they have to support TPP, which could turn out just as awful as some claim it is (and should therefore be voted down when fast-track authority brings it to the floor for a vote), but they should stop letting unions and other protectionists cynically exploit their paranoia by conflating the TPA fast-track authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership as a means to halt the advancement of free market principles.
