A good deal for Americans
Once again, Democrats are opposing a reasonable proposal by President Bush. And once again, a prime reason is politics. They cannot stand the idea of handing a victory to a leader they so deeply despise.
Even after the president advanced a plausible plan to remedy Social Security by limiting benefit increases for wealthier recipients, Democrats adamantly refused to negotiate. Now they’re taking a similar hard line by opposing the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), a positive proposal to reduce tariff barriers between the United States and six Central American countries.
Bush has ratcheted up his campaign for the treaty, mentioning it recently in a press conference, a radio address and a major speech to the Organization of American States. Still, no more than a handful of Democrats have endorsed it, mainly lawmakers from port cities like New Orleans and Seattle that benefit from increased commerce.
Normally, the president might pass the pact with just Republican votes. But GOP lawmakers representing industries that could suffer from the deal (textile makers in the Carolinas, sugar growers in Louisiana) have lined up against it. As a result, the treaty remains stalled on Capitol Hill.
The president bears considerable blame here. After an uncharacteristic first year in office, when he reached out to Democrats on issues like education and tax relief, Bush has governed in a high-handed and highly partisan fashion. The Thanksgiving turkey has a louder voice in White House circles than Democratic leaders, and in Congress Bush’s allies have acted like America is a one-party state.
In the House, district lines were redrawn to cripple Democrats and ethics rules were trashed to protect Republicans. In the Senate, GOP leaders threatened to eliminate one of the Democrats’ few levers of real power, the right to filibuster judicial nominees. In both chambers, Democrats have been almost totally excluded from legislative deliberations.
So perhaps it’s understandable that centrist, pro-trade Democrats like Rep. Ellen Tauscher of California have turned against CAFTA. These same centrists are also angry, and with good reason, that Republican leader Tom DeLay has pressured business interests to hire only Republicans and contribute only to GOP candidates. So why back a treaty, they ask, that is supported by business and opposed by a key Democratic constituency, organized labor?
The answer is simple: the treaty serves the national interest. American markets are already open to most imports from the six affected countries (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras and the Dominican Republic). CAFTA would lower barriers to American goods entering a combined market of 44 million potential consumers.
A group of former diplomats from previous Democratic administrations endorsed CAFTA as reinforcing “democratic processes and rule of law in Central America.” As their April 20 letter to Congress pointed out, “This emphasis is timely, because opponents of democracy are increasingly active.”
Still, CAFTA is in trouble. There are always winners and losers in any trade deal, and the potential losers — sugar farms, textile mills — are more focused and better organized than potential winners like technology exporters. And consumers, who might pay less for some consumer goods, are barely visible in the debate.
On a deeper level, Americans seem to be suffering a crisis of confidence. Phrases like “outsourcing” and “globalization” prompt widespread anxiety, even panic. Usually sensible people are tempted to retreat behind protectionist walls that have never, and will never, offer any real relief.
To overcome this crisis, the president has to do a better job of reaching out to Democrats. And Democrats have to get past their resentments and see that increased trade is a good deal for America.
(Steve and Cokie Roberts can be contacted by e-mail at [email protected].)