Well,
the President returned from his recent Asian trip claiming success, in
spite of numerous skeptics, including many deep within his Republican
supporters. For example, the New York Times reported that the
President’s “isolationist approach to trade” is rattling what little
uneasy peace remains within the party. It calls administration trade
policies “at odds with longstanding conservative orthodoxy about the
benefits of free and open markets.”Republicans have long believed that
by allowing markets to operate unhindered, nations can boost domestic
industries, lift their wages and improve living standards, the Times
says. But that view is not shared by Trump whose approach is “sowing
concern among many Republicans and business groups that the United
States will wind up on the losing end of an integrated global
economy.”Trump said he told other leaders as he traveled across Asia
that his tougher approach had begun to take effect, and that nations
around the world have renewed respect for the United Sates.Nevertheless,
“he appears to have returned from the trip empty-handed, without any
new trade deals in process,” the Times said. At the same time, several
of the nations he visited announced they were moving forward with the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, an 11-country trade deal that had support
from Republicans but which Trump jettisoned during his first days in
office.As a result, Republicans and business groups “are now warily
eyeing talks over the North American Free Trade Agreement, which resumed
again this week against the backdrop of Mr. Trump’s get-tough talk,”
the Times said. The White House could soon be forced to decide whether
to accept minor changes to the accord in a face-saving gesture or
withdraw entirely, “since neither Canada nor Mexico shows signs of
bending.”Canadian and Mexican negotiators believe that renegotiating the
pact to more heavily favor the United States would cost them
politically at home — and that, even if they agreed to Trump’s demands,
the United States Congress would not approve them.The Times sees the new
fissures over trade as a product of a surge in populism on both the
political right and left.Growing anxieties about the unforeseen costs of
globalization, the overhang of the financial crisis and the stagnation
of the middle class have deeply damaged voters’ faith in the ability of
free markets to deliver prosperity — and fractured the Republican Party
in the process as conservative populism has become increasingly
ascendant, while free market Republicans have been left increasingly
marginalized, the Times says.NYT also points to a new poll by the Pew
Research Center that says Republicans are now more likely than Democrats
to say that NAFTA is bad for the United States. The opinion of
Republicans toward free trade has worsened sharply since the George W.
Bush administration, when the party was more likely than Democrats to
describe trade, in general, as a good thing.While free trade has been
broadly beneficial to the United States, politicians and business
leaders in past decades oversold its potential to benefit all, Stefan
Selig, a former trade official in the Obama administration, said. The
benefit to the average American of being able to buy cheaper products
was no match for the concentrated damage that global trade — in addition
to forces like automation — has wrought in some American
communities.The Trump campaign appealed to voters by advocating a
heavier hand to prevent further damage from trade, including the use of
tariffs on foreign products and renegotiating trade pacts.However,
pushback from this political realignment has grown, NYT says, as the
business community, a traditional ally of the Republican Party, has
increasingly protested the president’s plans to rewrite NAFTA, the Times
said.Some Republicans, including those from farming and border-states,
have protested the president’s threats to withdraw from NAFTA arguing
its loss would deeply harm their constituents.However, the Times
concludes that responses from other quarters — including congressional
leadership — has been surprisingly muted, given how deeply the
president’s actions contradict the Republican Party’s longstanding faith
in freer trade, and the intensity of opposition form well established
markets to potential losses.Now, the Times says that trade advisers are
reporting that congressional leaders are pressing the United States
trade representative, who handles the negotiations, behind the scenes.
Still, most have not been willing to create an open rift with the
president on trade that could put at risk their current efforts of
reforming taxes, said Phil Levy, a senior economist for trade during the
Bush administration.“There is little enthusiasm among congressional
Republicans for open conflict, but that doesn’t make the tensions go
away,” Levy said.So, the Times report is moderately bad news for the ag
sector, it seems. It also argues for intensification in the already
active opposition by ag leaders to the administration’s anti-NAFTA
leaders who seem to ignore the looming reality of damage to important
markets from a weakened or terminated NAFTA, Washington Insider
believes.
Welcome
