Why Won't Hillary Clinton Defend Trade Deals? - The Atlantic - 0 views
-
crimped construct leaves no room for the very different perspective of someone like architect Charles Kelley in Portland, Oregon
-
“Portland,” Kelley said, “has become responsible for setting the frame for how China will look at urbanism for the next 50 years.”
-
consult with cities around the world to develop sustainable communities through everything from promoting renewable energy to opening bike lanes.
- ...23 more annotations...
-
“Now … I can’t imagine what the region would be like if we didn’t have the level of trade we have [today].”
-
has also refused to defend the North American Free Trade Agreement that her husband Bill Clinton signed—an agreement Trump routinely calls “the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country.”
-
international trade specifically as beneficial for the U.S. economy, consumers and their own living standards,
-
Democratic partisans are now much more likely than Republicans to view globalization and trade as a positive force on all those fronts
-
the movement of blue-collar whites largely skeptical of trade into the GOP, and their replacement in the Democratic coalition by minorities,
-
creates an undeniable need for fresh thinking on how to connect those displaced workers with the economy’s new opportunities.
-
“If you are able to produce parts of your finished product in Mexico and lower your cost, you can increase your share of the market,”
-
her conditional early support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership that President Obama negotiated with 11 Asian nations, but has also refused to defend the North American Free Trade Agreement that her husband Bill Clinton signed—an agreement Trump routinely calls “the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country.”
-
Kelley works with about a dozen cities across six countries, with a special concentration in Asia. “Portland,” Kelley said, “has become responsible for setting the frame for how China will look at urbanism for the next 50 years.”
-
Threatening tariffs and walls, Donald Trump insists that trade and immigration are undermining wages and devouring jobs (while also presenting migration from Mexico and the Middle East as a security threat). Clinton has defended immigration, but effectively surrendered to Trump on trade.
-
“We Build Green Cities,” a loose consortium of Portland-based engineering, architectural, and environmental science firms that consult with cities around the world to develop sustainable communities through everything from promoting renewable energy to opening bike lanes.
-
Clinton’s suspicion of trade isn’t just a tactical maneuver: Veterans of the Bill Clinton administration say that internally she was always dubious about pursuing NAFTA. But her resistance to expanded trade reflects outdated assumptions about the Democratic coalition.
-
While Trump has never appeared more confident than when he’s denouncing TPP or NAFTA, Clinton has been tongue-tied.
-
But the latest Chicago Council survey, released last month, shows that Democratic partisans are now much more likely than Republicans to view globalization and trade as a positive force on all those fronts. (Over two-thirds of Democrats now say trade benefits both the overall U.S. economy and their own living standards.)
-
With Trump centering his campaign on mobilizing working-class whites, Clinton may rely even more than previous Democratic nominees on these pro-trade groups—even as she further sublimates their views.
-
The reason: It’s encouraged an integrated North American supply chain that allows American firms to produce autos and other products at less cost overall by shifting some manufacturing to Mexico.
-
Wood acknowledges that U.S. manufacturing workers who lose jobs in this exchange often are not equipped to compete for the new positions that the integration process creates. That creates an undeniable need for fresh thinking on how to connect those displaced workers with the economy’s new opportunities.