http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/
The conventional wisdom this year was that the loss of manufacturing jobs this year would hurt Bush. But I suggest that the loss of manufacturing jobs actually hurt Kerry in places like Ohio and Missouri and other places with heavy manufacturing jobs because Bill Clinton signed the Permanent Normal Trade Relations Agreement (PNTRA) with China in 2000.
People thought when the PNTRA was first signed that our companies could make huge profits because China has 1.2 billion people. But what happened was that people in China won't buy our goods because they cost 10 times as much in China as local Chinese goods. On the other hand, companies like Wal-Mart could bully manufacturers into closing plants here and moving to China where they could manufacture goods cheaper because they could pay workers much lower wages.
In Missouri, my prime exhibit for why I think the loss of manufacturing jobs hurt Kerry is St. Joseph. In St. Joe, we had four different manufacturing plants close and move to foreign countries this year. Gore carried St. Joseph by 500 votes in 2000. But in 2004, with these four plants closed and thousands of jobs lost, Bush won St. Joseph by 2000 votes. My theory is that these people voted for Bush because they recalled that Clinton signed the PNTRA agreement with China and the job losses in 2004, in an election year, were painful reminders of that fact. These results were duplicated in places like Ohio, a state with heavy manufacturing job losses.
It did not do John Kerry any good to blame the Chinese. We gave them a blank check by signing this agreement, so we can hardly blame them for trying to sell their goods here at low prices in Wal-Mart. And Kerry voted for this agreement. For these displaced American workers, John Kerry's tax proposals, I propose, were like band-aids which did not address the real problem of manufacturers being able to make 80% profits in China instead of 20% profits here according to the documentary. Kerry did not show how it would be unprofitable for a manufacturer to continue to export their plants to China instead of coming back here.
This is why we need a candidate like Russ Feingold, who voted against the PNTRA agreement as well as NAFTA. He has shown a consistent record of fighting to protect American jobs against manufacturers closing their plants and moving to China. http://feingold.senate.gov/issues_trade.html
Feingold has also proposed minimum trade standards which would require minimum worker protections in any future trade agreements that we enter in to. He would also oppose fast track authority where the president can rush trade agreements through congress without amending it and limiting the amount of debate that congress can have on a trade agreement.
I think many of these displaced manufacturing workers have, in despairation, turned to their local fast-growing Fundamentalist church who tells them to vote for candidates who support repealing Roe vs. Wade and oppose civil unions. This is effective because it adds to the sense of betrayal these workers have over Clinton betraying them by signing PNTRA. But if Russ Feingold can convince these people that he is fighting for the restoration of manufacturing jobs and can convince them that the Republicans are not, I think that is our best chance of getting back the Midwest rural vote.