On Oct 5, 2007, at 10:49 AM, Michael Perelman wrote:
> Shouldn't we distinguish between trade and "trade deals." A NAFTA
> agreement on trade
> could have been a few paragraphs long. Trade deals (with the US)
> seem to mean a
> capitulation on a whole lot of issues by the US's trading "partners."
You're right, but it's too complicated for politics. Railing against NAFTA isn't going to win you many votes, I'm sorry to say. It didn't work for Buchanan, and it's not working for Kucinich. It'd be more popular to campaign for things that will help people who lose their jobs for whatever reason.
I just got an email from Jonathan Tasini - who ran for Senate against Hillary, and made NAFTA a centerpiece of his campaign. He's now head of the Labor Research Association. He thinks that Dems should try to win the votes of Republicans who don't like free trade. Yikes. They're likely to be very right-wing people, and it's not going to help much.
Doug