Guest columnist
Kerry's protectionist shift out of touch with reality

By Steven J. Buri
Special to The Times

Steven J. Buri

E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Most read articles Most e-mailed articles

Yet, the issue should matter a great deal to the residents of Washington state, since free and open access to the global marketplace is crucial to our economy — just consider Boeing, Microsoft, Starbucks and the state's many agricultural products.

President Bush, despite following Commerce Department recommendations on steel tariffs (as required by statute), has been a steady free-trader. He is committed to expanding commerce with developing countries and traditional trading partners alike.

In contrast — and characteristically — John Kerry's position on trade is muddled by contradictions.

Ray Waldmann, a former assistant secretary of commerce for international economic policy (and also a retired Boeing executive and University of Washington business instructor), recently commented:

"First, Kerry raised eyebrows with his talk of 'Benedict Arnold CEOs' — those CEOs who were contracting with overseas suppliers. Now he is supporting an increase in taxes on companies with overseas operations. His statements have many members in the trade and business community worried about his commitment to the principles of free and open markets."

At first glance, Kerry has an admirable record on free-trade agreements. He supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which is vital to our region's hugely favorable trade with Canada and Mexico. He also voted to renew "fast-track" trade authority for the president and to make "most-favored nation" trading status for China permanent.

Yet, Kerry drifted toward protectionism during the Democratic primaries — and continues to do so.

This shift is neither subtle nor unimportant. Kerry, who famously has waffled on taxes and the war in Iraq, apparently has come to believe that his free-trade record as a Massachusetts senator is detrimental in key battleground states that are net losers of manufacturing jobs — particularly Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

So instead of defending his pro-trade votes of the past, he is attempting to distance himself from them. In defending the benefits of free trade, Kerry also could have educated voters on the changing worldwide economy — one in which many countries are shedding manufacturing jobs at a much higher rate per capita than the United States. His failure to do so demonstrates a lack of personal conviction on this issue.

The decline in support for free trade among rank-and-file Democratic Party activists is almost as troubling as the new attitudes of the party standard-bearer. And they certainly depart from the strong pro-trade record of President Clinton.

Those on the far left, such as former presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, advocate withdrawing from NAFTA and the World Trade Organization altogether. And while most members of the party aren't nearly as strident, protectionist policies are gaining converts.

Kerry's own running mate, John Edwards, criticized him during the Democratic primaries for his record on trade issues and said that, had he been in the U.S. Senate at the time, he would have voted against NAFTA. Protectionist clichés from the Democratic National Committee, labor unions and environmental activists are also enshrined in the 2004 Democratic Platform.

Add all this together and it is clear that Kerry, as president, will be under substantial pressure to push for labor and environmental provisions in trade agreements that most countries would find untenable.

The internal pressure on Kerry from political advisers and the external pressures from labor unions and certain environmentalists already are having their intended effect. According to his campaign Web site, Kerry will, among other things, order a 120-day review of all existing trade agreements — ostensibly to ensure that U.S. trading partners are meeting their labor and environmental obligations. As president, he will also work to include "strong and enforceable labor rights and environmental standards in the core of new free-trade agreements." Serious people in the trade field know that such standards are little more than a euphemism for preventing competition from poor countries.

Kerry's new stance may sound smart politically, but it is out of touch with reality. On balance, trade is enormously beneficial to both the United States and our trading partners. Developing countries especially benefit from free and open trade because of the economic prosperity and job creation that come with it. And with that prosperity come the resources to improve the environment.

Increased prosperity in nations also means more long-term trade opportunities for higher-priced and more-skilled U.S. goods and services. In the past, Kerry embraced this philosophy — making his recent backpedaling all the more disconcerting.

Kerry's protectionist overtures will, in the long-term, slow environmental progress and economic justice in the United States and abroad. But Washington state, in particular, will feel the effects swiftly and severely.

Steven J. Buri is the executive director of Discovery Institute, based in Seattle, www.discovery.org