Democrats on Capitol Hill don't need any more evidence that they have not been winning enough elections of late because they are constantly being reminded of their losses, and that losing carries consequences. But this has to be an especially difficult period. First, the anticipated battle royal over the direction of the Supreme Court looks set to turn into a brief arm-wrestling contest before John Roberts is elevated to the Court, almost by acclamation. Then, after many years preventing adoption of an energy bill that is a boon to the oil and gas industries, George W. Bush is likely to sign this bill into law in a matter of days. The same can be said for bankruptcy and medical malpractice reform measures.
And, finally, in the wee hours of the morning, the House passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement, dubbed CAFTA, to open up markets with the Dominican Republic and five Central American countries (Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador). The Senate approved the bill in June by a 54-to-45 vote, and now Bush get to signs it, one small triumph for Bush as Congress heads home for the August recess.
Democrats were solidly against CAFTA but could not seem to sufficiently mobilize against it. The unions opposed it, but they were having their own problems, and their threat against Democrats did not carry the same weight they might otherwise have.
“The centrality of free trade in our interdependent world cannot, and must not, relegate our commitment to working men and women in this country and elsewhere to the periphery,” said Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer. “ … We must seek to provide a level playing field for American workers, and improved living and working conditions for foreign workers, by striving to ensure fair wages and basic workplace protections.”
The Democrats lost, 217 to 215. But it took an extraordinary show of force by the White House to win. Democrats seemed on the verge of defeating the legislation with the help of some Republicans who worry that these trade agreements would move jobs offshore and hurt their working-class constituents. It took a trip to the Capitol last week by both the president and the vice president, in the midst of the CAFTA debate, to demonstrate just how important the bill is to the administration. Still, 27 Republicans defied the White House and voted against. But the Democrats lost 15 members who voted for the bill, giving Bush the narrow victory.
Meanwhile, the whole CAFTA debate foreshadows one that could dog the Democratic Party into the next election. After the nasty North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) fight, Democrats, under Bill Clinton, established themselves and their party as being at least open to free-traders. But concern about the displacement of American workers has caused them to shed their free-trading skins.
Hoyer is one example. “The Democratic Party is a party of free and fair trade, of open trade, of open economic relations between nations,” he said during the debate. But in a fragile economy with more and more workers worried about being displaced by someone in some distant land doing the same work much more cheaply, that article of faith is being tested and shaken.
Now, admits Hoyer, “There is a growing concern that the trade agreements are not in the best interests of our workers or of our businesses or of our country.”
Which raises this question: In 2008, are Democrats going to be talking about the opportunities of the global economy or the problems of the American economy? My guess is that they'll likely be talking about both, very loudly and to one another. Edward Gresser, a Clinton trade official who now directs the Trade and Global Markets program at the Progressive Policy Institute, has observed that the CAFTA debate promised “to be exceptionally polarizing and emotional. Progressives in particular have been divided over CAFTA, with senior Democratic Party foreign-policy spokespeople and Latin Americanists often supporting the agreement, while many organized constituency groups -- and most congressional Democrats -- oppose it.”
That divide will persists, and its significance will depend on the state of the economy at election time in 2006 and 2008. This week, however, Democrats had a chance to beat the White House. Instead, they must now spend August smarting at having lost yet another close one.
And the situation is not likely to improve much when they come back after Labor Day. The debate over Roberts' nomination has been reduced to a question of timing: whether the hearing should begin in August or September, whether it should be five days or two, and whether Democrats will agree to an up-or-down vote by September 29.
“I think the key to all this is to make sure that there's ample time for the committee to do its work,” says Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. “Let me say that I don't see, unless something untoward comes up --- I see no reason that we couldn't finish this by the first of October.”
With the votes, something untoward is the best Democrats can hope for.
Terence Samuel is the chief congressional correspondent for U.S. News & World Report. His column about politics appears each week in the Prospect's online edition.
