Is Clinton's TPP opposition a cynical ploy or honest difference with Obama?

[Armstead]

IMO the TPP is one of the CORE issues we are facing. Whether one is for or against it, it WILL determine the future, every bit as much -- probably more -- as NAFTA and all of the previous "free trade" agreements that have been implemented.

It also -- when paired with Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) counterparts with Europe -- is further reshaping the world, and how nations can and cannot make their own policies.

That said, I think they are BAD. That's just IMO, but I say it is BAD for all of the reasons that have been stated by opponents many times. The "free trade" movement is a giant Con Job perpetuated by the Elites in alliance with the establishment Republicans and an economically conservative segment of the Democratic Party.

One can have honest disagreements about that.

But here's the problem I have in light of the Democratic defeat of anti-TPP platform position.

Clinton has been campaigning on being opposed to TPP in its present form in the primary. Her opposition is not on the concept, but on some of the specifics. She has never said we need to rethink the nature of these agreements. Just that she finds the current form in need of some form of modification. (She has also not been forced to take a public position on the European counterparts, unfortunately).

Obama is for it, openly and aggressively. He will have a "victory" in his accomplishments if passes in his term.

The TPP has been a divisive issue among Democrats. The business-oriented Democrats are for it. But much of the base, including unions and other core groups, are against it.

Nowwwww, the cynical part....... whether there was a "nudge, nudge, wink,wink" agreement between Obama and Clinton.

Were the agreements between her campaign and Obama that she can campaign against it -- but not actually take a stand to prevent it from being forced through in the lame-duck Congress? Is she trying to have her cake and eat it too?

I'm wondering whether there was a conversation like this between the two of them:

"Mr. President, you know I have to pretend to be against the TPP to seal up the primary. But I'm not really against it. So I won't allow the Democrats to actually oppose a vote before I become president. So as long as you can get the Republicans and enough Democrats together to push it through, I can pretend to be against it, but help you get it passed."

"Sounds good Hillary. I'll take the heat, so you can get elected. But we both want it to be a done deal, so this will let you off the hook publicly with that pesky base."

I hope that's not what is going on.

[Sancho]

1. I think your imaginary conversation is one of the least likely scenarios..

There's no reason to pretend anything. As you noted, Hillary doesn't like certain parts of the TPP; mostly the lack of monetary manipulation controls, and some countries would still avoid union activity. Obama thinks that it's the best agreement that he can get for now, and it's better than not have one at all. Chances all that if Obama was a candidate for office today, he would also conclude that opposition to TPP has become a popular meme, even though most people have minimal understanding of the actual pros and cons, nor are economy forecasts predictable.

Like all trade agreements (there are about 20 right now: https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements), some people "win" while others "lose" both inside and outside the US boarders.

There's no way to predict the future (What energy source will emerge?, Who will lead China?, etc.), so current trade agreements will try get a handle on globalization and likely have mixed results. Even decades later, it's not entirely clear if NAFTA was good or bad:

http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-immigrants-silly-tribal-and-economically-illiterate-358369
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-12-30/nafta-20-years-after-neither-miracle-nor-disaster
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/pros-and-cons-of-nafta.aspx
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/u-s-economy-since-nafta-18-charts/
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/nafta-20-years-later-benefits-outweigh-costs/
http://www.ttgconsultants.com/articles/freetrade.html

As a President, Hillary will likely emphasize her goals exactly as always: women's and children's rights, social justice, and education. Obama has been focused on economics from day one. That may be one reason that he put so much energy into a TPP as part of his legacy. Even then, Presidents have no choice but to deal with what happens on their watch. In 2007, the current Asian market was not on most people's radar leading up to Obama's election. Who knows if the TPP will even be part of the conversation in 2010 or 2014?

There's no reason for clandestine deals in the White House between Obama and Hillary, even though they both are experienced politicians who will avoid saying something to sabotage putting a Democrat in the Oval office.

[Armstead]

3. There is ample evidence that there are too many losers and to few winners in these schemes

The whole damn system of trade needs to be reevaluated and reoriented. Trade itself is not bad, and we obviously need trade policies. But the "free trade" crap is not really about trade so much as transferring global power and wealth from civil society to the global Corporate elite.

Back in the 90's and 00's people like Sanders predicted exactly what would happen with these "free trade" deals. Back then they were warnings that were dismissed with the same arguments being used to push through TPP today. Back then those warnings were dismissed as "unrealistic leftist rhetoric" too.....But they turned out to be prophetic, unfortunately.

Had we not opened our doors and handed the keys to China, for example, their negative impacts and clout would be much less today. The TPP is simply another scheme being sold as a solution to the problems caused by similar schemes in the 1990's. Hitting ourselves with a new hammer to cure a headache we deliberately allowed to happen.

I hope my cynicism about the machinations regarding TPP are incorrect. But I don't think so, as it is based on seeing what has unfolded since around 1980.

[Sancho]

10. I disagree, both from my experience and from reading neutral scholarly reports...

In the 60s I picked tobacco alongside migrants. In the 70s I worked my way through college in SC textile mills. I had plenty of relatives who were virtual slaves for a generation in those mill villages.

When China, for example, took over the jobs of textile manufacturing - it opened the door for European businesses like Michelin, BMW, Gulfstream, and Dufour yachts to come in to SC. There is definitely a problem with lack of unions in the South, but the American jobs that were created were as a good as the ones that went away trade agreements. It depends whether you were a person who lost out or one who hit the jackpot. Some of both occurred.

Economic inequality was not "caused" nor will likely be fixed by some tax policy or bank regulation or trade agreement. Read and watch videos of Thomas Piketty (including ones where he is on stage with Elizabeth Warren).

The Economics of Inequality by Thomas Piketty and Arthur Goldhammer

Sanders didn't predict anything new, nor has he offered any real solutions except isolationism! A rising economic China is going to happen. In fact, a rising South America will also happen. Either the US learns to deal with the world, or we can pull up the draw bridges and become like the UK - an economic dropout.

Trade agreements and policies need to be good ones, but simply rejecting all of them is throwing out the baby with the bath. It's simplistic and stupid. There are millions of Americans who own TVs and computers and phones because of trade that made them cheaper. Tell everyone to quit buying from China and see where that gets you. You trade jobs, but make it easier for low income people in the US to buy things. That's simplistic, but likely true.

When people look carefully at trade agreements - they are mixed. Many of my Democratic buddies who have international small businesses in Florida are in favor of the TPP! If your factory just closed, you probably don't like jobs going overseas. If you have a pipeline to selling in Asia and are interested in protecting your new invention or getting new customers - then you see trade agreements positively.

[Trajan]

29. It's posts like these that make me realize ...

The Democratic party is dead ....

Not my fault .... I've done what I could .... The Righties have assimilated and insinuated themselves into the party leadership ...

Done

*
.

[Sancho]

31. Then there are some of us who have been there as Democrats for many decades...

challenging wars in Korea and Vietnam, working for Peace Corps, civil rights, JFK, ERA, Special Ed, ADA, Carter, etc...and we realize that just "raising the minimum wage" is NOT a Democratic value.

Some of us believe in social justice and lasting changes.

Likely, there are very few on DU who have lived a more "Democratic" life than I have...

If anything, the current populous movements are reacting against something rather than moving towards something. Maybe you are part of that, maybe not. It is worrisome that the current populous movement is so focused on $s so that it misses other pressing values.

If you are against TPP, then what are you for??? Obama is not a "Rightie" and the TPP is his baby. Obama may be wrong, but he certainly has his reasons.

The Democratic Party is not dead!! It just put a President into the White House for 8 years who was MUCH BETTER than a Bush. The GOP is in more chaos than the Democratic Party for sure right now.

I'm not part of the "leadership" (at least as far as the DNC is concerned; I am an elected union officer), but I see a hugh difference between the national leaders of the Democratic Party and "Righties" - in fact, they are certainly NOT RW at all!

https://www.democrats.org/about/our-leaders

[Vattel]

2. I doubt that there was any such conversation because there would be no need for one.

Obama no doubt suspects what any intelligent person would suspect--that Clinton's opposition to TPP was just a ploy to help her in the primary. She wouldn't need to say it for Obama to believe it.

edited to add: Personally I still need to be convinced that TPP would be a bad thing. I see lots of predictions of negative impacts on wages, the environment, etc., but very little in terms of evidence. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough for the evidence though. I don't have a lot of free time.

[Armstead]

4. Problem is no one has the free time to understand them

They make the deals so convoluted that the issues are indecipherable to the average person.

But it all actually boils down to some simple concepts.

[Vattel]

9. Maybe the simple concepts are a good reason to be skeptical about such agreements.

But I worry about relying entirely on them as a basis for opposition. Sometimes simple concepts turn out to be too simplistic. For example, one simple concept is that undocumented workers take jobs from citizens. But if you look in greater detail at the evidence, it is not clear at all that undocumented workers have a negative economic impact on citizens or even that citizens suffer net job loss due to undocumented workers.

[auntpurl]

12. According to this NYT article, undocumented workers hurt low-skilled native workers

but help literally everyone else, and the overall economy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/do-illegal-immigrants-actually-hurt-the-us-economy.html?_r=0

[Vattel]

13. Right, obviously there are going to be winners and losers.

I was not suggesting that every single citizen benefits from undocumented workers. I was talking about the overall net impact on citizens.

[auntpurl]

14. I was agreeing with you. :) nt

[Vattel]

15. oh, okay. It is so rare that anyone at DU agrees with me that

I just assumed you were disagreeing (lol).

[Armstead]

19. Sometimes simple is a necessary way to look at things

The underlying intent and overall impact is a starting point for figuring out what is being gained and what is being lost.

Laying those goals out clearly, and holding policymakers accountable for actually adhering them, is a necessary starting point.

We have never done that with trade.

[Vattel]

22. Point taken

[NorthCarolina]

38. The giveaways to big pharma

alone should be more than enough to shun it. Those on limited income currently breaking their pills in half to make them go just a bit farther will be able to stop that because they won't even be able to afford a pill to cut up.

[stopbush]

39. People - like me - "break their pills in half" because our doctors are smart enough

to prescribe our medication in pills that are twice what we need on a daily basis. That saves us money when there's a cap on our co-pays. 100 5-m pills that I break in half cost me the same as would 100 2.5-m pills that I wouldn't break in half. The difference is that I'm getting twice the number of doses for the same price.

I'm guessing that "big pharma" is in on the deal as the meds have a convenient score line right down the middle to make pill splitting easier.

[NCTraveler]

5. She is simply opposed to its current language.

Not the overall concept. A few more protections in place and she is on board.

[Armstead]

6. yeah....That's the problem

[NCTraveler]

7. I don't see why that's the problem.

Wanting to make is better for American workers is the problem?

I greatly respect that many of our leaders, establishment and grassroots organizations, and citizens are standing up and fighting to have more protections added. That's positive in my book.

[Armstead]

17. There's a difference between good policy and window dressing

The phrase lipstick on a pig comes to mind regarding TPP and what it represents.

We need trade policies that are clear and manageable, and advance the interests of the participating countries based on their own situations -- not catchall "one size fits all" corporate manifestos that are merely designed to protect the interests of the investor classes at the expense of national sovereignty and laws that protect workers and the environment and civil society.

[NCTraveler]

24. This isn't one size fits all.

And that is one of the areas we are fighting strongest.

The words you just spoke give me a strong feeling you aren't sure what it even is.

[DemonGoddess]

27. We need trade, full stop

Thing is, while she's clearly stated she's opposed to parts of it, I'd like to see this and other trade agreements refined to better protect us. That's one of the things she mentioned, was not enough to protect our interests.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. The GOP candidate wants to build walls to keep people out and erect barriers to keep out goods.

I trust our party will not be a lite version of him.

[Armstead]

16. Fair Trade policies are not the same as walls

Youre favored VP candidate doesn't like TPP eitehr

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Without speaking to this or that trade deal breaking down barriers and boundaries is a good thing.

As President Obama is fond of saying the world is getting smaller.

[Armstead]

21. I agree with that

I don;t think allowing corporations to form barriers to the operations of civil society is good way to do that however.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. I agree

I do believe starting trade wars with China, Japan, South Korea, and Mexico as Trump seems to pine for will have horrific consequences, not for those at the top, but for those at the bottom.

Reminds me of Mencken's saw about "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

I hope when they debate Hillary stands up for free and fair trade.

[auntpurl]

11. I object to this characterisation of Hillary as sneaky and manipulative. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. The demonization of trade on both sides of the aisle will not end well.

Kant said that when you think of the wisdom or justice of an action you should think what it would be like if your action was made into a universal law.

One of the things that made the world wide depression of the 30s so bad is that all nations went into their protective shells.

The GOP was the party of tariffs, not us. In a perfect world nations and people would do what they are best at and compensated fairly.

[ismnotwasm]

36. I not only object to it

I am very tired of it.

[stopbush]

25. Yet another anti-Hillary OP, inartfully bordering on concern trolling.

How and why did this OP come into existence? I'll take a guess: the poster buys the RW lies that Hillary isn't trustworthy, and as the poster doesn't like the TPP, they believe that the only real reason the dishonest Hillary could have for now opposing the agreement stems not from her beliefs or convictions, but from her oft-reported-by-the-media dishonesty.

"I'm wondering whether there was a (cynical, evil) conversation between them..."

"I *hope* that's not what's going on."

Sigh. All too typical an example of what gets posted at DU these days, days where we are supposed to be rallying behind our nominee.

And as a bonus, the OP manages to take a swipe at the (apparently) also-cynical President Obama while it's at it.

[JTFrog]

33. Yep.

Hard to give someone the benefit of the doubt when they go out of their way to make up ridiculous conspiracy theories to try to cover the bashing and trashing.

Just sayin....

[Armstead]

40. awwwww

[CrowCityDem]

26. Trade deals are not inherently bad. I like candidates who understand the nuance of reality.

[DemonGoddess]

28. ^^^This!!!

[NurseJackie]

30. So, what you're saying is that there are more shades than simply BLACK or WHITE?

Wow!

[CrowCityDem]

32. Yup. This is why we need better arts education, so people know that, lol.

[Armstead]

42. Yeah there are shades

Trade and trade agreements are good things. But not all trade agreements are good. They can also be bad, or have unintended consequences.

Something we might have learned in the 90's.

[Armstead]

41. So do I

And the nuances of reality include not accepting crapola at face value, just because you favorite politicians tell you something is a good thing when it may be problematic.

[yallerdawg]

34. TPP has been finalized.

Your notion that Hillary could tweak it and then support it is 'uninformed' at the very least.

It would have to be renegotiated and then reevaluated by the same 12 countries. Many of these countries have stated - after initiating these negotiations over 10 years ago - it's now or never.

[Armstead]

43. Hence my theory that her opposition may just be a political ploy

I'd prefer she be honest about her opinions about it.

[Arizona Roadrunner]

35. $15 per hour minimum wage may be meaningless if TPP-ISDS passes

As a person who has served on a local government’s Board of Directors, I am VERY concerned about the TPP ISDS court process with results being the surrendering of governmental sovereignty to corporate interests, foreign and domestic.
Basically due to secretive deliberations, this “judicial” process is designed to favor corporate over governmental concerns and interests. This agreement should not allow corporations to use this judicial process, but should demand they use our existing judicial process as it relates to governmental entities. How many state and local governments can afford to be involved in such a process? Just by the threat of suits through ISDS, a climate where governmental units cave in will be created. Look at what has happened under NAFTA and the WTO as it relates to our right to know where our food comes from. Look at how a Canadian corporation is using NAFTA to sue the U.S. on the Keystone project.
This will mean that political topics such as minimum wage increases and housing and zoning laws may be pre-empted by just the threat of a suit through the ISDS process. Look at what happened with Egypt when a corporation tried to use a process analogous to the ISDS to prevent Egypt from raising their minimum wage laws. (Veolia v. Egypt)
Therefore, I recommend, in the national interest, this agreement not be approved. When people find out how this can be used to prevent them from finding out things such as where products are made, etc., there will be charges of treason and the political process will never recover the trust of the American citizens.

By not voting against the TPP outright, the Democrats have given Trump a great opportunity to tie the Democrats to the "establishment" and "corporate America". He can also use this position to raise questions about the Democrats "really caring about you and your job". This is a loser position for the Democrats for the "down ticket" candidates too. By the way, the US Chamber of Commerce is not worried about Clinton being "currently" against TPP. They figure after she gets into office, she will find a way for her to be "currently" in favor of it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/chamber-of-commerce-lobby_b_9104096.html

[NorthCarolina]

37. Ploy, she helped draft it.

I seriously doubt she's as against it as she claims to be during an election campaign where even the notion of TPP is abhorrent to so many.

Campaign rhetoric is just that, grand rhetoric for the masses with little to no post election relevance. Curb your excitement because the same-ol-same-ol is all that's in store for America.

[Armstead]

44. I have no excitement to curb

[Demsrule86]

46. The primary is over

Hil or Trump...pick one. I am with her.

[riversedge]

45. How is your headline helping to elect the Democratic Presumptive Nominee??

and your language of 'cynical play' is vile.

[MirrorAshes]

47. +1

just more troll-bait.