Suddenly, NAFTA has again reared its notorious head as a catchall target for all our economic frustrations. [remember the “giant sucking sound”? god I’m old!] 

I am no great fan of NAFTA or trade agreements generally, but it’s important to distinguish what NAFTA does from what it doesn’t do. 

NAFTA is being speciously blamed for many of the general symptoms of globalization. NAFTA didn’t cause globalization (nor is globalization a bad thing on balance, but that’s a separate discussion). The evolution of the world's economies, transition to a market system by previously communist countries, and the opening up of markets in previously isolationist economies helped spur globalization. Innovation in technology that transformed how people work and exchange information and reach markets, labor pools, and job opportunities – all of these things helped spur globalization. The biggest emerging players in the new global economy are in Asia – they’re not part of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Outsourcing of jobs to India and a trade deficit with China, for example have nothing to do with NAFTA.

Here’s an interesting (and I think partly correct) criticism of Obama’s contention that renegotiating NAFTA will cure our trade deficits. I think it’s worth thinking about whether our hyper-consumerism and lack of thrift are more responsible for trade deficits. 

HOWEVER, I wouldn’t dismiss out of hand Obama’s (and Clinton’s) inclination to consider renegotiation of the labor and environmental standards of NAFTA. But we should be clear about why that might be a good thing.
Personally, I think it might be a good thing because our – democratically determined – domestic public policies on labor and environmental standards shouldn’t be preempted by a trade agreement (or an “investment agreement” as Public Citizen has called NAFTA). The real damage caused by NAFTA is not so much that it has disadvantaged America vis a vis Mexico and Canada, but that it has disadvantaged the environment and working people in all three countries primarily for the benefit of wealthy multinational corporations. I think that’s probably a legitimate concern. What I don’t think is legitimate is the soft-rhetorical fusing of these concerns with a “tough-on-Canada-and Mexico” posture and with fears about trade deficits. 

Labor and environmental standards are important because they are worthwhile public policies to adopt; because we care about minimum standards of living, about public health conditions, and about the sustainability of natural resources. This has nothing to do with – and should never be conflated with – the goal of protectionism for its own sake. We’ve seen where this kind of conflation can lead. Isolationists who never favored labor or environmental regulations within our borders suddenly become apologists for regulation when appealing to our worst protectionist (and vaguely xenophobic) impulses. 

Then, there are openly xenophobic denunciations of NAFTA (and any kind of international cooperation) from organizations like the John Birch Society, who make such denunciation an integral part of their anti-immigration agenda (and who, by the way, equally denounce labor and environmental protections). 

I hope progressives like Obama and Clinton – and all reasonable people – remember to beware of easy rhetorical temptations and in the future avoid all talk of “hammers” when it comes to dealing with our neighbors!