In light of Kerry's apparent "surge," I thought this September piece on Kerry's speech on trade to the Detroit economic club is timely:
"Kerry is attacking Dean for supporting fair trade proposals that would require U.S. trading partners to establish basic labor and environmental standards. "Governor Dean has said repeatedly that America should not trade with countries that haven't reached our own environmental and labor standards," Kerry grumbled in a speech to the Detroit Economic Club. "I will assure strong labor and environmental standards. But his approach would mean we couldn't sell a single car anywhere in the developing world."
The problem with Kerry's argument is that he is simply wrong. Dean, a former free trader, has started to talk about the need to do more to prevent the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs to China and other countries. Dean wants to write tougher trade deals in order to defend the interests of workers, farmers, consumers and the environment not just in the United States but in the countries that trade with the United States. That's a reasonable standard, with which most Democrats in Congress - and most Americans - agree.
Yet Kerry is trying to demagogue the issue, with claims that fair trade would "send our economy into a tailspin." How absurd! The U.S. manufacturing economy is already in a tailspin, thanks in no small measure to the free trade policies of the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.
The disturbing thing about Kerry's latest pronouncement is that he has made this mistake before.
Just last year, the Massachusetts senator tried to position himself as the leading Senate proponent of measures designed to preserve the ability of American states to protect workers, farmers, the environment and consumers in the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement the Bush administration is crafting in closed-door negotiations with other countries in the western hemisphere. While Kerry sounded like a good player, he ended up breaking with fellow Democrats to back Bush's plan to establish a "fast track" process to negotiate the FTAA agreement.
The signals Kerry has sent on trade issues are deeply disturbing. He is starting to sound like 2000 Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore, who tried to talk a pro-worker line but consistently supported the free trade that has devastated the manufacturing and agricultural sectors of the U.S. economy. Gore's shakiness on trade issues caused many working people to cast their ballots for Ralph Nader, a fierce critic of the corporate free trade agenda. Even more working-class voters simply stayed home. They didn't see the point of choosing between a Republican who backed bad trade policies and a Democrat who backed bad trade policies.
If Kerry persists in promoting a free trade agenda that is only vaguely superior to that of the Bush administration, he will muddy the debate and damage his prospects in November of 2004."
http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/column/nichols/57797.php
As Nichols points out, nominating Kerry will resurect Nader and/or the Greens. You will have many progressives who will not vote for Kerry because of his vote on the Iraq war AND his position on trade. He's the only one of the top contenders who would have both of these strikes against him. I hope the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire take that into consideration when they consider who is the most "electable" candidate.