Reply #113: Clinton ran on NOT signing NAFTA in 1992... [View All]

[IrateCitizen]

When Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992, one of his campaign themes was taking the Bush Administration to task for pushing NAFTA without demanding that Mexico raise its labor and environmental standards first. Upon getting into office, however, he ignored his previous stance and instead pushed for NAFTA as it was -- a virtual giveaway to corporate interests. It's bad enough that he pushed the agreement, but the manner in which he did it was a downright betrayal to organized labor and progressive groups, one which still sticks in many of our craws to this day.

As for job growth, much of this was due to a "trickle-down" that resulted from the internet boom. I would highly suggest Kevin Phillips' perspective on this in his book, Wealth and Democracy. In it, he describes Bill Clinton as a modern-day Grover Cleveland, because they both were Democratic Presidents who presided over an era defined by a technological boom (railroads for Cleveland, high tech for Clinton) and both went out of their way to assure big business that there would be no real restrictions placed on them.

I don't think that anyone is going to deny that FAIR trade can lift economies. The European Union is proof of that. However, such arrangements have to be done with the honest goal of elevating all those involved, rather than simply crafting a deal that is most favorable to big business. The EU emphasizes the former, while NAFTA certainly emphasizes the latter.

There's nothing protectionist about wanting fair trading standards. As it is now, both developing nations AND workers in the US are being sold down the river in order to enrich transnational corporations, and that's just plain wrong. It's the stuff of the second Gilded Age.