Fast track has gone to the Senate, where its passage, alas, is assured. "I don't think we stand a chance of defeating it," says one dispirited union official. Indeed, labor lobbyists aren't even focusing on the trade legislation itself, but on an expansion of assistance for displaced workers that they hope the Senate will muster enough votes for, even as fast track breezes through.
But this anticipated passage is passing strange. The fast-track bill,giving the president new authority to negotiate trade deals, staggered out of theRepublican-controlled House by a one-vote margin, devoid of almost any Democraticbacking. Now, it has moved to Tom Daschle's Senate--the Democratic side ofCapitol Hill--where, one might think, support for labor rights and environmentalstandards in the new global economy would be at least as great as it is in TomDeLay's House. But it's not.
Put aside, for a moment, the divisions between northern and southernDemocrats, or rural and urban Democrats, or DLC and labor Democrats. Theleast-examined dividing line in the Democratic Party is that between its House andSenate delegations on the issue of the global economy. This division has beenaround for the better part of a decade, and it's only grown more pronounced. In1994, 60 percent of House Democrats voted against NAFTA, while their Senatecolleagues split evenly on the measure. Last year nearly two-thirds of HouseDemocrats opposed granting permanent-normal-trade-relations status to China,while Senate Democrats favored the bill by a 37-to-7 margin.
And now comes fast track, which precisely 90 percent of House Democrats votedagainst. Longtime free-trade champions like Sacramento's Robert Matsui andHarlem's Charles Rangel led the opposition this time around, partly because GOPWays and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas refused even to deal with them--butalso because they feared entrusting the interests of workers and the environment,here and abroad, to the tender mercies of the Bush White House. On past votes,Democratic free-traders in the Senate have been able to make a formidablealliance with the House's Rangels and Matsuis. On the forthcoming fast-trackvote, however, they stand in splendid isolation not only from their party's coreconstituencies but from nearly all their normal allies in the other house.
For some time now, the trade issue has posed a distinct conundrumfor each of the two parties. Republicans have been asked to subordinate theirnationalism to the demands of their business backers--and, the clout of capitalbeing a hell of a lot more potent than the mystic chords of union, they've donejust that. Democrats have been asked to embrace a laissez-faire order globallyeven when they favor a mixed economy here at home. The problem is that thisbalance is no more sustainable than Lincoln's house divided. By permittingcorporations to sue (in closed proceedings) to undo U.S. environmental and laborregulations that might put a check on the absolute sovereignty of trade, fasttrack threatens the foundations of the Democrats' domestic programs.
But why does the Democrats' worldview shift the moment they cross therotunda? The most obvious answer is that labor is increasingly an election-dayfactor on the House side, while money--that is, business--dominates in Senatecampaigns. Unions are able to put hundreds of activists into close Housecontests, with considerable success. Most states, however, are too big for fieldcampaigns to be decisive. What matters at the state level is big money for bigmedia campaigns.
This distinction, says United Auto Workers lobbyist Barbara Somson, carriesover to life on the Hill. "Senators live in a rarified atmosphere not really opento congressmen," she says. "House members are always going to things like picnicsin their districts. Not senators--their social life is dominated bybusinesspeople. More and more, the Senate is like the House of Lords."
Even Lords, however, need to be held accountable. Fast track should not be afree-vote in the Senate. A longtime free-trader like John Kerry ofMassachusetts--if he ends up voting for the bill--should have to explain whyevery House Democrat from his state was wrong to oppose it. Ditto the dynamic duoof Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, all of whose New York House colleaguesalso voted no. Presidential aspirants like Tom Daschle and John Edwards shouldtell us why the laissez-faire order they routinely seek to mitigate at home isnonetheless just what the planet needs. With Senate Democrats on the brink ofdisgracing themselves, we can at least insist that theirs be an audible, not aquiet, disgrace.
