Copyright 2000 The National Journal, Inc.
The National Journal
April 1, 2000
SECTION: POLITICS; Pg. 1050; Vol. 32, No. 14
LENGTH: 1556 words
HEADLINE:
Bush And Gore's Positions On Trade
BYLINE: Bruce Stokes
BODY:
Al Gore and George W. Bush differ
more on cowboy boot style than
they do on issues of trade and international
economics. Both men
are avowed free-traders, they support granting China
permanent
normal trade relations as part of Beijing's joining the World
Trade Organization, and they advocate moderate reforms for the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
But, said a Washington business lobbyist, "there is a
world of
difference between the two of them. And it has to do
with implementation,
not conceptualization." Gore's ability to
deliver greater trade
liberalization as President will be fatally
hobbled by the compromises he
will make to satisfy his labor and
environmental supporters, say Bush
advisers. Gore partisans
contend that it is the Vice President's credibility
with these
very constituencies that will enable him to break the current
Washington logjam on trade initiatives and forge a new public
consensus
on globalization.
Trade has never been a major
campaign issue in a
presidential race. But with the union-heavy industrial
Great
Lakes states shaping up as the November battleground, and with
presumptive Reform Party presidential candidate Pat Buchanan
threatening
to make economic nationalism a cornerstone of his
campaign, the distinctions
between Gore and Bush are likely to
widen and become more significant as
Election Day nears.
For several years, the trade
policy debate in Washington
has revolved around whether trade agreements
should be structured
to improve labor rights and enhance environmental
standards,
especially in developing countries. The impasse has pitted an
array of organized labor and environmental organizations and
their
Democratic allies, led by the White House, against the
business community
and their GOP cohorts. The deadlock has
stymied efforts to grant the
President new trade-negotiating
authority and to launch a new round of
international trade
negotiations. And it now threatens passage of
PNTR with China.
Gore has
repeatedly pledged that he will find a way to
use trade deals to enforce
worker and human rights and to protect
the environment. But the Vice
President has never spelled out how
he might be more successful than the
Clinton White House in
getting Congress and developing countries, which
oppose such
linkage, to go along. Some Gore aides imply that he might
initially pursue these concerns in one-on-one trade pacts, such
as the
proposed free-trade agreements with Chile and other
amenable nations.
Republicans and much of the business community
believe
that Gore will be too quick to compromise on these issues. They
say that a principled free-trader such as Bush can end the
stalemate on
trade liberalization without major concessions to
labor and environmental
activists.
So far, the only trade flap of the
campaign erupted in
February, when labor leaders claimed, and Gore denied,
that he
promised them he would renegotiate the China deal to include
labor safeguards. "Every time Al Gore touches this issue he gets
a
shock," the business lobbyist observed. "It has to affect his
stance."
And it has. The last time the Vice President
mentioned
free trade in a speech was October 1999. Bush allies deride such
risk aversion and contend that it foreshadows a "flight not
fight"
mentality on trade issues if Gore is elected President.
Bush is more of a reflexive free-trader, which poses its
own electoral
problems. He's been advised, so far to no avail, to
tone down his paeans to
open markets. The election is likely to
be decided in Michigan, Ohio, and
Pennsylvania, and Reaganesque
advocacy of trade liberalization in those
states may undercut
Bush's support in union households that are considering
voting
for the Texas governor because of Clinton's peccadilloes.
Whoever becomes President will have to wrestle with
the
same problems next year. Much will depend on the balance of power
in
Congress. But given the razor-thin majorities expected on
Capitol Hill, the
prospects for stalemate loom large.
Assuming that
the China trade legislation passes this
session, the next President's first
challenge will be to secure
trade-negotiating authority. Again, the sticking
points will be
environmental and labor safeguards. Distilled to its essence,
the
prescription of both candidates for resolving this impasse is
better
leadership.
Bush supporters appeal to the same
cure-all to explain
how he will reverse the rapidly deteriorating U.S. trade
relationship with Europe.
On export controls, a
perennial concern to campaign
contributors from Silicon Valley, both
candidates are committed
to easing restrictions on commercially available
technologies.
But some in business have lingering doubts about Bush's
ability
to contain the hawkish proclivities of his advisers. "Although
Bush doesn't want to use trade sanctions to promote a social
agenda,"
griped a trade association lobbyist, "he is largely
wedded to trade
sanctions to promote a foreign-policy agenda.
That can cause heartburn for
American companies."
Bush may face similar
infighting over reform of the IMF
and the World Bank, the most pressing
international economic
issue facing the next Administration. Bush and Gore
both support
moderate changes in the lending practices of these
institutions,
but GOP conservatives are pushing for radical surgery.
Finally, both candidates' take on the future of the
global economy will shape their stance on other issues, such as
farm
policy. Current federal agricultural programs are premised
on an
ever-growing international market that has not
materialized. In rewriting
the farm bill next year, one test of
whether the next President is a
free-trade idealist or a
pragmatist will be how much additional aid
Washington affords
farmers as they await the elusive benefits of
international
trade.
On issues with few
ostensible differences, the meaningful
distinctions are likely to emerge
only once the candidate reaches
the White House.
On the Stump
Bush
Speech in Iowa, Jan. 23, 2000
In order to keep the economy going, in
order that people can find
high pay and high-quality jobs, it's important
for this nation to
embrace free trade. There are some who don't see the hope
and
promise of trade. But I do. I think if we have a level playing
field
in the world, our producers, Iowa farmers and Texas
ranchers and
entrepreneurs, can compete anywhere, anytime. The
fearful people build walls
around America. It's the confident
people who tear them down.
60
Minutes, March 7, 2000
I favor mainland China coming into the World Trade
Organization
for two reasons. One, it'll be good when they open up their
markets for our American farmers and ranchers and for our
entrepreneurs.
I also do so because I know when the
entrepreneurial class in China gets a
taste of freedom, the
freedom of the marketplace, the freedom of capitalism,
they'll
demand other freedoms.
Gore
Democratic Leadership Council,
Washington, D.C., Oct. 14, 1999
There's absolutely no question that America
must stay engaged in
the world. I have fought for free trade and open
markets for my
whole career because I believe it's the way to create good
jobs
and higher living standards for our people. But we need new rules
for the global marketplace. Globalization should be a tide that
lifts
all boats, not a wave that overwhelms the most vulnerable.
We need to make
trade work for working families. I strongly
believe that our President needs
the authority to reach new trade
agreements to open new markets to our goods
and services. But as
President, with your help, I will also insist on the
authority to
enforce workers' rights, human rights, and environmental
protections in those agreements.
Wall Street Journal interview, March
14, 2000
I support (permanent normal trade relations with China). And I
will continue to help get it passed, so that it can go into
effect....
The Chinese said they will enter the WTO (World Trade
Organization), whether
or not they receive the PNTR from the
United States. So,
it's really a question of whether we will have
a disadvantage, a serious
disadvantage, versus all of the other
nations that are selling into the
Chinese market.
Position
* favors permanent
normal trade relations with China
* opposes linking
trade agreements to labor and
environmental issues
Gore
* favors permanent normal trade relations with China
* favors linking trade agreements to labor and
environmental
issues
By the numbers
Do you think free trade is good or bad for the
United States?
Good 64%
Bad 27
SOURCE: Pew Research Center, 2/14/00
Advisers and Allies
Bush
* Gary Edson, former chief of staff, U.S. Trade
Representative's Office
* Larry B. Lindsey,
former governor, Federal Reserve
System
Gore
* Laura D'Andrea Tyson, former director, White House
National Economic
Council
* Lawrence Summers, Secretary of the
Treasury
LOAD-DATE: April 3, 2000
