By Bailey Scott
There appears to be a rather rare, and likely unintended, case of bi-partisan unity among some of the 2016 presidential hopefuls: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (the TPP). On both sides of the aisle, candidates are opposed to the deal, saying that the trade negotiations will hurt American jobs and harm workers.
In the past, Hillary Clinton distinguished herself as a free-trade proponent, fervently championing her husband President Bill Clinton’s landmark North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Today, though, the echoes of the Democratic base seem to be pulling the former Secretary of State to the left, and, in a classic case of political opportunism, she has wavered in her support for the TPP: "I don't believe it's going to meet the high bar I have set.”
Many analysts believe that Hillary’s leftward movement is a product of pressures from her opponent – Bernie Sanders. With socialist sympathies and an anti-corporate bent, Sanders sees the TPP as an economic puppet for corporate elites and a way to disenfranchise the middle class.
Ironically, many Republican candidates, despite professed adoration for free trade and capitalism, have opted to oppose President Obama’s landmark deal. Republican frontrunner Donald Trump called the deal “a disaster” at the South Carolina Freedom Summit. And Ben Carson is just plain wishy-washy on the subject – he vaguely supports a notion of free trade, but cannot bear to support anything so closely linked to President Obama. Ted Cruz and Rand Paul both voted against the deal, not wanting to grant the President fast-track authority. Even establishment conservatives who support the TPP, like Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, are very careful with their words, hearkening on vague notions of boosting American competitiveness.
As presidential hopefuls eviscerate the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), we are once again witnessing the sad reality that electability too often has little to do with good policy. Only this time, the consequences could drastically impede America’s ability to lead and collaborate in an increasingly globalized atmosphere.
Is the TPP bad for America? If so, why is the President so supportive? If not, why is there such heated opposition throughout the race for the presidency? Putting aside the pulls of partisanship and political ambitions, economists overwhelmingly support the establishment of a free trade agreement across the Pacific.
Perhaps to better understand this trade deal, it is advisable to look towards the past. Back in the 1990s, NAFTA was a similar political hot button, particularly for many leftists. Pro-labor union sentiments history blamed growing inequality on free trade, and anecdotes about factories closing to move to Mexico abounded.
But, as economics experts point out, the growing inequality that began in the 1990s and continues to grow today was not due to the effect of free trade; rather, the inequality gap can be ascribed to the impact of technological transformation. Improvements in technology asymmetrically benefitted skilled workers with college degrees and harmed uskilled workers.
Today, similar arguments about “shipping jobs overseas” continue to dominate the airwaves and the protests. But, regardless of this politicized view of free trade, the evidence expressed by economics experts remains consistent. According to researchers at The University of Chicago’s Booth School, when weighted by confidence, 93% of economists strongly agree or agree that past major trade deals have benefited the majority of Americans. That is a massive consensus for a field infamous for theoretical debate. Likewise, the bulk of those same economists support the TPP.
If economists almost unanimously support free trade, why do Republican and Democratic politicians contest the topic so vehemently? By blaming growing American inequality on free trade agreements, such as the TPP, politicians effectively blame national failures to re-train workers for the twenty-first century onto exogenous actors. In the process, while the political gains among the public may be vast, the diplomatic and economic losses are far more problematic.
If the anti-trade rhetoric continues to grow, the US government risks relations with trade partners and unplug a stream of retaliatory tariffs. In our globalized society, increased protectionism would undoubtedly harm American producers and consumers, the majority of whom interact with international goods and services on a daily basis. In short, while politicizing the TPP and other free trade agreements may serve immediate purposes in electoral ballots, the long-term economic consequences could detract from American economic prosperity and growth.
Bailey Scott is the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Online for the Sigma Iota Rho Journal of International Relations. She is a senior at the University of Pennsylvania, majoring in International Relations.
