Unwanted populism

Sen. Hillary Clinton says she wants a “new manufacturing policy” that would involve renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement. Sen. Barack Obama paints a picture of blue-collar workers losing their health care while competing with their children for minimum-wage jobs. \nDespite claiming to offer messages of hope, the two Democratic candidates for president have been awfully depressing lately. The only message I have been hearing is one of populism. \nI suppose it isn’t too surprising. The Democratic primary race is very close. It’s also taking place during an economic downturn. Still, after John Edwards dropped out of the race I was hoping the populism would die down. \nObama now says he wants to renegotiate NAFTA or bail out of it. He has been slamming the agreement, claiming it cost America nearly a million jobs, including 50,000 in Ohio. He seems to forget that while increased trade hurts some, it benefits many more. Canadian officials, no doubt concerned about such talk from their southern neighbor, like to remind people that some 276,500 Ohio jobs are currently supported by cross-border trade.\nObama also touts his Patriot Employer Act. The Act would increase the corporate tax on income earned abroad while giving a tax break to more domestic “patriot” employers. Alas, making American companies less competitive abroad will hardly lead to them creating high-paying jobs back home. In fact, offshore activities of U.S. companies tend to increase rather than reduce domestic business. \nIn the past, Obama talked more of a centrist economic game. He was honest about how his cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions would increase prices for consumers. His economic advisers are non-ideological and pragmatic. Even if he is a moderate at heart, he cannot play it both ways by exploiting anti-globalization sentiment. \nClinton has been just as bad lately, though she has long tried to appeal to the working class. Recently, an Obama mailing called Clinton a “champion” of NAFTA. “Shame on you, Barack Obama” was her response . Apparently, she expects us to believe she always wanted to change the agreement. I do not believe her, which, ironically, was one of the reasons I endorsed her in the first place. \nClinton has also probably crafted more radical solutions to the subprime mortgage crisis than her rival. She has proposed a deeply unsound five-year freeze on interest payments for sub-prime borrowers, one that will surely result in higher interest rates.\nAs is the case with Obama, there are plenty of reasons to suspect that Clinton will not be as radical as she sounds. That doesn’t mean either candidate should be let off the hook. \nThey seem terrified of being considered too left on social issues such as gay rights, the death penalty or gun-control. You won’t see either candidate calling for an end to the embargo on Cuba or for a more balanced policy towards Israel. However, if an unsound economic policy will garner a few votes, they eagerly trumpet it. \nThat isn’t real leadership – too bad, we could use some.