Lieberman and the Democrats Differ on Trade

April 1, 2008 | Permalink

This Sunday on This Week, Joe Lieberman chastised the Democratic Party for not being the party it used to be as reason for him endorsing John McCain:

Well, I say that the Democratic Party changed. The Democratic Party today was not the party it was in 2000. It’s not the Bill Clinton-Al Gore party, which was strong internationalists, strong on defense, pro-trade, pro-reform in our domestic government. It’s been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and basically will –and very, very hyper-partisan. So it pains me. I’m a Democrat who came to the party in the era of President John F. Kennedy. It’s a strange turn of the road when I find among the candidates running this year that the one, in my opinion, closest to the Kennedy legacy, the John F. Kennedy legacy, is John S. McCain.

Most of the focus on these comments have been regarding foreign policy. While many people point out the foreign policy ramifications of this, there seems to be less meat on that bone. Traditional Democratic and Republican foreign policy of yore really has little to no relevance. We don’t know how Democrats would have conducted foreign policy outside of the Cold War. It’s completely speculative. And while some guesses are better than others, it also seems pointless.

Moreover, Lieberman seems to be using somewhat of a straw man here. Neither Clinton nor Obama is as liberal on foreign policy as other Democrats. Indeed, Hillary Clinton could reasonably be described as one of the most hawk-like Democrats today at all. The candidates who are no longer in the race are all by far more liberal on foreign policy, save perhaps Biden. However, it’s a fair accusation in the sense that Clinton and Obama are currently locked in a silly argument on who could withdraw forces the fastest. As Ambers pointed out, that argument is spurious.

It seems to be more of a response to the Democrats taking the “100 years” comment of McCain out of context. That, in turn, seems to be in response to the general “cut and run” characterization of all Democratic policies.

Point being? Foreign policy is politicized. You have to wade through both sides’ rhetoric to find the truth.

The real disagreement seems to be on trade. The attempts to pander to the base of the party are clearly moving away from Democratic economic policies of the 90s. No one is admitting this, but strangely, no is worried about this. Conservative point to it as a matter of fact.

Picking a conservative blog at random, it seems Powerline last dealt with the substance of NAFTA back when Edwards was in the race. And it’s not that conservatives are not prepared to make this argument. Just that it has not been made yet. It’s coming.

I think this is something that could get more traction. On the same day that Lieberman made these comments, Chelsea Clinton said that her parents do not agree on NAFTA.

This is not a 40 year shift we are talking about, as in foreign policy. That sort of thing can be waved off. (Clearly, FDR for instance had a different foreign policy than Democrats 40 years prior to him). This is somewhat of a dramatic shift ongoing in the Party over a very short period of time.

In fact, it’s so dramatic that it cannot possibly be true. This has to just be pandering. That’s the lesson from the Goolsbee uproar. This has little value as a day-to-day event. It’s more crucial impact is the risk of pandering to any campaign in this heightened political atmosphere. In an era where one off-color remark at a campaign event can begin the downfall of a candidate from possible Presidential contender to college football analyst, and when flip-flopping is one of the most serious charges imaginable, it’s harder if impossible to move back to the center.

Both Clinton and Obama are pandering on NAFTA. It’s easy to see why: the lower class white vote is the key determinable in the election, and the economic times make it more popular to take a more protectionist mindset. But it’s the type of mindset their economic advisors are against, and aside from minor changes, it’s unlikely to change. Both Clinton and Obama, for example, see the free trade agreement with Peru as the framework for fixing NAFTA. It’s unlikely many on the left would agree that was a substantial enough fix.

In other words, perhaps Lieberman has a point. Even Chelsea admits it.

[Photo Credit: CBS News]

Related at 2008Central.net: