In his most recent column, David Sirota comments on the curious criticism of NAFTA by Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton:
True, Clinton has recently criticized NAFTA - the 1993 trade policy whose lack of labor and environmental protections encourages companies to move American jobs overseas. But cheap campaign rhetoric over a few months does not make one a longtime critic - especially considering the record.
During Clinton's 1996 visit to Texas, United Press International reported that she "touted the president's support for NAFTA." In her memoir, Clinton trumpeted her husband's "successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA." The Buffalo News reports that in 1998 she "praised corporations for mounting 'a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA.'" And last year, her lead Wall Street fundraiser told reporters that Clinton remains "committed" to NAFTA's "free" trade structure.
Clinton's attempt to hide this history emulates a principle pioneered by George W. Bush in this, the age of stenographic journalism. As he made his unsubstantiated case for war, Bush proved that the media are willing to present politicians' lies as fact. Clinton simply figures that if she says she has "long been a critic" of NAFTA, then the assertion will be transcribed as truth.
That said, her U-turn is about more than dishonesty - it is about the public will.
I've been meaning to mull over Clinton's supposed support among blue-collar Democrats. Frankly, I never understood it. The media seemed to accept the meme that Clinton was the blue-collar, or "true" Democratic favorite, but never explored her actual history on trade and unions. Yes, Clinton is campaigning against NAFTA this election cycle - but that's been a bit of a surprise, IMHO. As Sirota pointed out, it's also audacious, given Clinton's past support of the trade agreement.
But it's not just NAFTA. During Clinton's stint on Wal-Mart's board of directors, the "blue collar" champion made no effort to change the mega-corporation's stance on unions or exploitation of foreign sweatshop labor.
But ultimately, Sirota is right in noting that it's public pressure that's causing Clinton and others to take a new look at labor issues, and choose stances that would benefit American workers. Of course, this is an election. Once the new president assumes office, it's a whole new ballgame. That's when our work really begins. |
