free trade agreement

It’s hard to imagine two more different snapshots of Rhode Island than when Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump visited this week in their respective upstart campaigns to become the next president of the United States.

Sanders chose an outdoor venue at a public park in Providence. He played Steve Earle and Bob Marley songs. People threw frisbees and sang protest songs. Trump set up a tent outside a hotel in Warwick. He went with classic rock standards like the Rolling Stones and Elton John. The police broke up several fights in the parking lot outside the event.

Throngs of young people came to see Bernie. The audience was diverse and colorful. They seemed happy and well-off. The vibe was beyond positive. It was a celebration of what’s possible in politics. Even the jeers for Goldman Sachs seemed in good spirits.

The jeers at the Trump event did not seem in good spirits. The audience was mostly older, white people. They were angry. The vibe was more of a protest. It seemed the rigged economy had genuinely left them behind.

There are great differences between Sanders, the socialist-leaning Senator from Vermont who is leading a progressive revolution in the Democratic primary, and Trump, the ionic Manhattan businessman who seems to have already taken over the Republican Party. But there was one striking similarity too.

Both Trump and Sanders railed against free trade agreements in general and lamented the loss of manufacturing jobs in Rhode Island when China joined the World Trade Organization in particular.

Like Sanders, Trump laments the loss of American jobs. He said he wants Apple to make its product in the United States. He said Hillary Clinton “is controlled by the people who don’t want those jobs to come back” and he mocked Ted Cruz for supporting the Trans Pacific Partnership. Sanders mocks Clinton for supporting the TPP, and says Americans have to exercise their consumer power by not supporting corporations that outsource jobs.

Anti-globalization economic populism is the nexus between Bernie Sanders’ political revolution and Donald Trump’s promise to make America great again. I’m not sure if these two constituencies could or should ever come together, but they definitely have that in common.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, a proposed 12 nation free trade agreement that’s been nicknamed “NAFTA on steroids” between the US, Canada, Japan and others, has the American left – if not mainstream America yet – on high alert for two reasons.

One reason is that so-called “free trade” agreements and organizations like the TPP, NAFTA and the WTO benefit big business rather than regular Americans.

“Global health advocates, environmentalists, Internet activists and trade unions have deep concerns about what the deal might contain, and are making as much noise as possible in order to influence negotiations before a final version becomes public,” according to a Washington Post Wonkblog post from December.

And the other reason is that the final version could win congressional approval without ever becoming public. President Obama has been seeking what is called “fast track authority” which would stifle lawmakers ability to amend the deal.

That’s why Congressmen David Cicilline and Jim Langevin, along with 150 House Democrats, signed a letter saying the TPP it should not be fast tracked.

“I believe it is too important an issue for Congress to be bypassed with fast-track authority,” Langevin said in an email to RI Future. “The TPP is far-reaching, affecting economics, intellectual property, the environment, health care and so much more, and as such, it merits a transparent, measured discussion between the Administration and members of Congress.”

Added Congressman David Cicilline: “Using trade promotion authority to ‘fast track’ complex trade agreements restricts Congress’s ability to ensure trade policies are fair for American workers, businesses, intellectual property holders, and consumers. Congress should have a say in crafting trade agreements, which impact U.S. workers and our economy.”

While details of the TPP are still shrouded in secrecy, there is some evidence that the free trade agreement could have a particular impact on an industry important to Rhode Island’s economy. According to the International Business Times (emphasis mine): “The U.S. has its own issues about opening up certain industries, too, such as removing sugar import tariffs and quotas that would harm American sugar beet farmers. The U.S. is also facing the sensitive prospect of inflicting harm on domestic textile and seafood producers in the negotiating process.”

But the Left in general fears the deal because, like NAFTA, it could put American workers in peril and would probably have adverse effects on environmental protections as well. According to the Economist: The “21st-century” aspects of TPP are “behind-the-border” issues, such as intellectual-property protection, environmental and labour standards, the privileges of state-owned enterprises and government-procurement practices. All are problematic.”

And then there are the provisions of the TPP that should raise ire in every American. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation: “Leaked draft texts of the agreement show that the [intellectual property] chapter would have extensive negative ramifications for users’ freedom of speech, right to privacy and due process, and hinder peoples’ abilities to innovate.”

Tag: free trade agreement

What Sanders and Trump have in common

Cicilline, Langevin oppose ‘fast-tracking’ TPP free trade agreement