Matt Miller has a provocative column today on an old tension within the left: What's more important, supporting workers and economic justice here at home, or around the world? To put it more starkly, look at China, where an export-driven economic strategy has lifted some 300 million people out of poverty -- nearly the entire population of the United States. That strategy, however, has at least partially led to a decline in the manufacturing jobs that helped create the American middle class. "Whose side are liberals on? The American people? Or people?" Miller asks.
This tension is especially true for labor unions, which are really the last vestige in American politics of the "international left" that still maintains relationships with the global labor movement and, when fighting trade pacts, generally fights for better standards for workers abroad. This often conveniently kills trade deals, which raises Nick Kristof's old question about relative development and whether it's better to accept working conditions among our trading partners reminiscent of the industrial revolution because it's still better than starving or subsistence farming.
I'm not sure, though, that the polarity is so crisp as Miller renders it. The Obama administration and some Chinese officials are bullish on an economic rebalancing plan focused on increasing Chinese consumer demand. Efforts to increase America's exports could make trade deals more beneficial for Americans and foreigners alike. What is clear now is that the U.S. strategy for dealing with globalization is not very effective, and we need a better approach.
But, even as Americans hate trade more than before -- a sentiment I would blame more on broader economic difficulties than the actual consequences of trade policy -- the issue looks to rise on the government's agenda as Republicans and Democrats seek agreement on Chinese currency issues and perhaps the South Korean trade deal. The White House's desire to drive the economy forward in the international arena is going to clash pretty hard with progressives, especially in the House, if neither group can come up with a smart angle on the issue and avoid a replay of the 1990s. Anyone have a good idea?
-- Tim Fernholz
