Matt and Ezra don't seem to see what the big deal is over NAFTA, but I think both Clinton and Obama are right in plugging for a reevaluation of the labor and environmental standards of the deal and its counterparts, though they may well be doing so in Ohio now largely because it's politically expedient in a place where the deals have few supporters. Even if the deal has had little impact in the United States outside of concerns about the corporate welfare it provides, as Ezra argues, there is a serious need to reevaluate it based on what it's failed to deliver for our trade partners, and for the decline of labor and environmental standards that it facilitates.
On the Mexico piece, Matt points to Brad DeLong to reinforce his belief that NAFTA was a good idea, but it should be noted that DeLong says he's not willing to declare it a total success. Especially, he notes, when it comes to what it promised to do and what is has actually done in Mexico – which is directly contrary to Matt's claim that "insofar as NAFTA was intended to improve the U.S.-Mexico geopolitical relationship and help consolidate moves toward political reform in Mexico." It's been bad for the agricultural sector there, and it hasn't yielded the kind of investment or increase in living standards. Mexico is now further behind the United States in relative terms than it was in 1992 and the distribution of income is more unequal. As DeLong himself admits, he's "still a believer, but my belief is relatively shaken now."
NAFTA should be reevaluated to put in place better labor standards, as both candidates argued last night – both here and in the countries we partner with on trade. Tougher labor standards all around will make it harder for companies to skirt those standards by shipping their jobs to other countries, and they shouldn't be getting tax breaks for doing so. A renegotiated pact should also put in place better environmental standards, especially as the United States seems on the verge of finally putting in place a cap on carbon. Exporting all our polluting industries to other countries doesn't help anyone in the long run.
On a separate but related note, as much as we all hate on Tim Russert, I think he was actually fair in pushing on Clinton last night for praising NAFTA in the past as a success of her husband's presidency. Sure, she's allowed to -- and should be praised for -- changing her mind on the pact. But you can't do so without acknowledging that you might have been wrong in the past.
--Kate Sheppard
