Stopping Short of Rejection, Clinton Sets Conditions for a Trade Deal
After 24 hours of silence, Hillary Rodham Clinton has weighed in on perhaps the most divisive issue before the Democratic Party, setting her conditions for accepting a new trade deal making its way to Congress but not flat out rejecting it.
“Hillary Clinton believes that any new trade measure has to pass two tests,” her spokesman, Nick Merrill, said in a statement. “First, it should put us in a position to protect American workers, raise wages and create more good jobs at home. Second, it must also strengthen our national security. We should be willing to walk away from any outcome that falls short of these tests.
“The goal is greater prosperity and security for American families, not trade for trade’s sake.”
The Clinton camp was responding to an agreement reached Thursday by the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Finance Committee, as well as Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, to advance legislation giving President Obama “fast track” authority to complete the broadest trade deal since Mrs. Clinton’s husband, Bill, secured passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership is proving every bit as divisive to Democrats as Nafta was in the 1990s. Trade unions, environmentalists and liberal activists have clamored to stop so-called trade promotion authority before Mr. Obama can even complete the Pacific accord.
Mr. Merrill laid down some of the conditions other Democrats have, especially Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the heir apparent to the party’s Senate leadership.
“She will be watching closely to see what is being done to crack down on currency manipulation, improve labor rights, protect the environment and health, promote transparency, and open new opportunities for our small businesses to export overseas,” Mr. Merrill wrote. “As she warned in her book, ‘Hard Choices,’ we shouldn’t be giving special rights to corporations at the expense of workers and consumers.”
The trade issue has aligned Mr. Obama with the Republican leadership and business groups usually critical of the president over regulations, health care and taxes — and against much of the Democratic coalition.
For Mrs. Clinton, the issue is particularly tough. President Bill Clinton’s pro-trade policies identified him as a new breed of centrist Democrat, but they have remained controversial ever since. Mr. Obama campaigned in 2008 on a pledge to scrap and re-negotiate Nafta, something he says he is doing with the Pacific accord, which includes Canada and Mexico.
But most Democrats have vowed that they simply have had enough of trade deals. Mrs. Clinton’s stating that “the goal is greater prosperity and security for American families, not trade for trade’s sake” appears to be a way of aligning with those frustrations without immediately rejecting the trade promotion authority bill, which will be formally marked up by the Senate and House tax-writing committees next week.
It may also be a signal that Mrs. Clinton is not ruling out a primary threat from the left.
In her memoir, “Living History,” she appeared far more sanguine about free trade.
“Creating a free trade zone in North America — the largest free trade zone in the world — would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal,” she wrote about Nafta.
One possible liberal challenger, Senator Bernard Sanders, the independent of Vermont, called on Mrs. Clinton Friday to reject any trade deal outright.
“My strong hope is that Secretary Clinton and all candidates, Republicans and Democrats, will make it clear that the Trans-Pacific Partnership should be rejected and that we must develop trade policies that benefit working families, not just Wall Street and multinational corporations,” Mr. Sanders said.