Yes, but do you believe a word of it?

This year, Bush will talk free trade yet clearly not mean it. At the same time, we may hear Kerry talking about protectionist policies yet not really mean it either.

AB

I like that as a campaign slogan: "Vote for Kerry - He's Probably Lying When He Says He's Against Free Trade." Warms the cockles of my heart.

Call me funny, but I expect most voters would rather vote for the guy who might be lying about supporting something they support than the guy who might be lying about opposing something they support. At least there's some hope of accountability in the first scenario if the guy doesn't do what was promised; otherwise, it's "what do you mean? I said I opposed free trade. You should have believed me!"

Fibnally somebody has uttered the name "Smoot-Hawley" in this debate. This is a history lession that every American should be required to learn because it is a timeless tale of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I fear this "review" of our trade agreements will end up with politicians everywhere threatening:

"If you don't stop competing with us, we are going to be forced to seriously hamper our economy, increase our prices and reduce our wealth and employment in order to stop you! We've done it before, we're prepared to do it again."

Has anyone else noticed something odd about the free trade debate in this country: even those who are directly benefitting from free trade can be vehemently opposed to it from a psychological standpoint.

Case in point: my brother has been a manufacturing plant manager for much of the past decade, first fighting to make his production lines more efficient and profitable (success!), then battling upper management over its attempts to shift production overseas (failure!), then spending much of his time overseeing those transfers (depression!) and telling workers their jobs were gone (double depression!).

He is furious with Bush and has threatened not to speak to me again if I vote for him. He's kind of excitable that way. But here's the kicker. He's about to take a job (a great job) with a German company looking to offshore much of its world-class manufacturing operation HERE because they can't make a profit at home anymore. Think this changes his mind about globalization? Think again. He still turns purple when he talks about free trade's pernicious effect on the country. By the way, my sister also works for a German company trying to expand its operations in this country. Go figure. She's anti-free trade TOO.

Dan, care to comment?

Repeat after me:

Words are cheap!

I don't care what Bush says.

I care about what he does.

Those familiar with USTR Zoellick's career are aware that his quotes here represent no change in his own position. He has always been a free trader, and better able to defend his position than almost anyone. The question has been his chief's commitment.

It's hard to find evidence that Bush has thought much about trade. Kerry appears to have thought more about it -- a Senator for almost two decades from a tech-heavy state like Massachusetts would have had to. The question with him is similar to the one with Bush, except that the organized pressure for protection is going to be greater on a Democrat. Does his call for review of trade agreements suggest an effort to mobilize elite opinion -- the free trade oritentation of which Kerry can guess now -- in support of existing agreements, and perhaps new ones? Or is it just a campaign straddle? In that case, when push comes to shove Kerry as President would move where the predominant Democratic interest group pressure directs him to move, because taking direction from interest groups is what Democratic politicians do.

I don't know the answer to this question. Maybe an answer will suggest itself in the course of the campaign. An interesting aspect of this issue is that, politically, the trade issues most discussed so far have been things like NAFTA, which passed a decade ago, and outsourcing of IT jobs to India. Yet a review of something like the compliance of US trading partners with the terms of trade agreements is most likely to turn up problems with China, the large trading partner with the most opaque (to be generous) legal system and least trustworthy government, raising domestic and international political issues no one is talking about now.

However, President Bush has apparently decided get off the fence and put the administration on the rhetorical offensive in reaction to Congressional moves to penalize corporations for offshore outsourcing.

Where's the beef?

“[A]n immediate 120 day review of all existing trade agreements...”

This alone would caused enormous economic damage. The uncertainty may very well push us into a serious recession. Anyone with a lick of economic sense knows this to be the case. Why aren’t more professional economists saying something?

“Think this changes his mind about globalization? Think again. He still turns purple when he talks about free trade's pernicious effect on the country. By the way, my sister also works for a German company trying to expand its operations in this country. Go figure. She's anti-free trade TOO.”

I have no interest in hurting your feelings. You already know what I’m thinking. It is obvious that you are increasingly becoming more Republican. Don’t feel bad, my own mother is still stunned that I do not vote Democrat. But she has mostly gotten over it.

“The question with him is similar to the one with Bush, except that the organized pressure for protection is going to be greater on a Democrat.”

This sentence needs to be highlighted. It succinctly gets to the nitty-gritty.

Chris Lawrence: "Call me funny, but I expect most voters would rather vote for the guy who might be lying about supporting something they support than the guy who might be lying about opposing something they support. At least there's some hope of accountability in the first scenario if the guy doesn't do what was promised; otherwise, it's "what do you mean? I said I opposed free trade. You should have believed me!"

Ok, you're funny. That's some serious contorting to stay behind your guy. Seriously how is one any better?

Bush proclaimed himself a free trader. He then imposed steel tariffs to curry favor in PA and WV. Same with textiles. He's a liar.

Kerry's proposed to study the issue, though the subtext of that is protectionist (and there may be some overt statements I haven't heard.)

So if you really want to bend and twist, on the issue of free trade, we have a currently established liar (Bush) and a potential liar (Kerry). I'd say an established liar is worse.

I think Zathras makes a good point about organized pressure. On the other hand, if Kerry sticks to his guns, where else is the Democratic base going to go? In the general election, Kerry's not going to win vote by being protectionist -- Kerry already has those voters. Bush on the other hand seems to think he can pick up swing and Dem voters with tariffs. Also, Clinton was a free trader.

The sure to still be Republican House could try showing a little spine on the issue too.

AB

“On the other hand, if Kerry sticks to his guns, where else is the Democratic base going to go?”

Ever heard of a guy named Ralph Nader? Trade protectionism is now a dogma to the left of center Democrats. No dissent will be tolerated. The Democrat activists are listening to Stanley Greenberg and Ruy Teixeira. They are well aware that the Republicans recently lost two major elections in Louisiana on the very last week due to this issue. In some parts of this country, like Ohio, this is the only issue that truly matters. The war on terror hardly even registers on their radar screen.

Either John Kerry stays with his “[A]n immediate 120 day review of all existing trade agreements...” theme or has no chance whatsoever in defeating President Bush. Nader will get about 4% of the total vote while many other Democrats will decide to stay home.

The funny thing about insourcing is that the same dynamics that apply to outsourcing, also apply to insourcing.

The primary reasons why companies are insourcing manufacturing into America are the lower dollar, excess of experienced workers and a dearth of experienced workers in outsourcing countries. Of the three I'd suggest the latter is the most important one. This is due to the massive competition between outsourcing companies to gain and retain experienced workers in other countries. Any company that relocates manufacturing here in America is largely spill-off from that competition.

An indicator of this is the fact that domestic steel prices have risen because foreign steel producers cannot produce enough steel to export any. Their domestic demand is so high they actually have to import steel.

This is because their manufacturing capacity is max'd out. So I'd suggest that people not get too comfortable about any statistics on insourcing.

It's all ephermal.

I should also add that I believe President Bush will easily win reelection by a minimum of six to eight percentage points. Sadly, though, I’ve been known to be wrong in the past. What if the election is much closer? If that is indeed the case---then Ohio is the state to watch closely. John Kerry can forget about a Southern strategy. I may have a better chance of beating up Mike Tyson in a street fight. No, our flip flopping senator from Massachusetts must make sure he captures Ohio’s electoral votes. He can only accomplish this feat if he clearly continues advancing a trade protectionist agenda.

On this same topic today at NRO:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/lukas200403100858.asp

Does anyone honestly think that there will be a Smoot-Hawley II in the Kerry White House? I sure don't. Saying something that you want protectionists to construe as protectionist language during a campaign is one thing (which Kerry is doing..."review period", &c.), but actually bucking the premise of free trade that ALL legitimate economists advocate is quite another. Kerry hasn't threatened (unless I've missed something) to end free trade, he's simply stuck to the seemingly successful Democratic premise of "Well, free trade per se isn't at fault, we just need to make sure it's a fair deal for us."

I think that political liberals' greatest strength, namely the mission of striving for broadly acceptable consensus on issues, should not obscure what we know to be the established trade policy of establishment moderates like Kerry. "Free trade under fire?" Of course. Unemployment in the manufacturing sector is high. Free trade in danger? Not quite.

“Does anyone honestly think that there will be a Smoot-Hawley II in the Kerry White House? I sure don't.”

"Well, free trade per se isn't at fault, we just need to make sure it's a fair deal for us."

The “[A]n immediate 120 day review of all existing trade agreements...” silliness is enough to cause enormous damage. And yes, those people in Ohio and similar states will demand that John Kerry unambiguously promises to “review” the hell out of our existing trade policies. By the way, have you really thought about how long 120 days is? The stock market would drop like a stone. Many people would be thrown out of work.

“I think that political liberals' greatest strength, namely the mission of striving for broadly acceptable consensus on issues, should not obscure what we know to be the established trade policy of establishment moderates like Kerry.”

You are living in the past. The Bill Clinton of 1992 is too conservative for today’s Democrat Party loyalists. Did you pay attention to what happened to Senator Joseph Lieberman during the primaries?

Angry Bear wrote:

Bush proclaimed himself a free trader.

Really? When did this happen? (full quote and full context please)

"The primary reasons why companies are insourcing manufacturing into America..." There's another reason, and that's basic logistics. Transportation of goods and materials costs money and takes time (unlike transportation of bits, for which these factors are rapidly approaching zero.)

Producing the complete product outside the US is only one approach to offshoring. There are others, such as producing labor-intensive components offshore and doing final assembly in the US.

I think I mentioned Smoot-Hawley on here last week, glad to see someone actually reads these posts! Bush has fought for the ability to negotiate free trade agreements with other countries. After winning this authority, he has signed free trade agreements with Chile, Jordan, Singapore, Australia, and is currently trying to finish up an agreement with Central America (CAFTA). He has supported freer trade with Africa, the Caribbean, and South America, as well as the creation of a FTA for the entire western hemisphere. On the other hand, he signed the pork barrel farm bill and supported tariffs on steel and textiles. His record is mixed, but clearly more on the side of free trade. The steel tariffs were a temporary attempt to aid the steel industry as it has reorganized, and as this has been accomplished, the tariffs are now gone. Free trade is good for American workers asn American consumers and it must be supported. Unfortunately, a part of American politics kowtows to the uneducated populist notion of protectionism. Zoellick wrote a great article in the WSJ about doing trying to get the best deal possible in reagards to elaving the sugar industry out of the FTA with Australia. We do the best we can, I like to call it muddling through, but we are consistently moving towards freer trade and Bush plans on keeping it that way.

Thorley Winston Asks:

Bush proclaimed himself a free trader.

Really? When did this happen? (full quote and full context please)

posted by: Thorley Winston on 03.10.04 at 03:22 PM [permalink]

From the GWB campaign 2000 archives:

"Governor Bush believes the United States will continue to be prosperous and competitive in the global marketplace if we embrace free trade. As President, he will work with Congress to restore Presidential trade negotiating authority and reassert American leadership on trade internationally. His priorities will include expanding free trade within our hemisphere, negotiating other regional and bilateral market-opening agreements, supporting the entry of China and Taiwan into the World Trade Organization, launching an ambitious new round of global trade talks, and enforcing American laws against unfair trade practices. Governor Bush believes that free trade is “a forward strategy for freedom,” and that as American goods and services enter foreign countries, so, too, do American values."
(see http://web.archive.org/web/20001019063249/www.georgewbush.com/issues/index.html)

That was too easy. Next?

AB
P.S. Dave seemed to imply that Ruy Teixeira is arguing that Dems should cave to Nader, when in fact Ruy T. recently said the exact opposite: http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000432.shtml

Hmm, if Kerry is as protectionist as some here fear, I sure doubt that he'd be getting all those atta boys from all those foreign leaders he's been talking to.

In all seriousness, if you follow the link to Kerry's website (http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/trade), you'll find the paragraph Dan cites is the only one that anyone could point to and say "Looky here, icky protectionist." And by the way, what's wrong with a review of whether our partners are honoring their obligations?

All in all, Kerry's promise of a review is one of those things candidates do when they want to look like they intend to "do something" about an issue, without actually doing anything.

We'll close with a line from Kerry's website that gives a better flavor about where he stands (at the moment). "Some Democrats pretend that we can close our doors to the global economy. John Kerry believes we need strong leadership to assure that the global economy works for America. "

AB: Bush ain't my guy. But thanks for trying to play!

The thing is: assume Bush and Kerry are both lying. Who's more likely to be forced to behave like a free trader: Bush, a significant fraction of whose party supports free trade wholeheartedly, or Kerry, whose entire party* essentially repudiates free trade?

* Funnily enough, in New England, the party is a free-trade supporter. Which just goes to show you that the Federalist Party never really died. ;-)

There is something puzzling about even the pro-trade rhetoric that comes from politicians:

"If we are to continue growing this economy and creating new jobs, America must remain confident and strong about our ability to trade in the world."

Trade is good for us if we are confident and strong, and of course it would be un-American not to believe in our confidence and strength. The implication is that trade restrictions would be needed if we were timid and weak, and those protectionists are being pessimistic on America, and that's why they're wrong.

But the case for trade has nothing to do with optimism and confidence. If it were to become evident that that Americans are a bunch of lazy slobs who are destined to lose their technological lead to India and China, that would not undermine the case for trade in the slightest. Americans might eventually become poorer than Indians and Chinese, but without trade they would be even poorer.

Why is it not acceptable to state the truth: "If you believe in America's future, you should be for free trade. If you believe America is becoming the armpit of the world, you should also be for free trade."

Dear Kelli,

Normally you are very thoughtful, but here you seem to have stumbled. If as one reasons, that American jobs were offshored in labor arbitrage to developing countries then this would imply that their labor had a lower marginal cost than ours. Similarly, now that American standards of living are eroding the marginal cost of American labor becomes attractive to German and European firms who have yet higher labor costs.

I suppose that America still gives a good value since it has a decent infrastructure system and legal transparency unlike Asian cultures, which can be a competitive advantage, and this is why the European firms didn't ship those jobs directly out to Asia. Nonetheless, the fact that European jobs came here and American jobs went to Asia and elsewhere is of little comfort.

The labor arbitrage system will reduce the differences in marginal cost of labor across the system, as labor becomes commoditized. This doesn't necessarily mean a "race to the bottom" in every instance, but it often means so in practice. This is classic economics and market dynamics.

I am curious how those who normally support free market trade seem to twist themselves into pretzels in order to deny that basic economic principles of supply,demand, marginal cost, market arbitrage, and other features of market efficiency suddenly somehow do not apply.

Their basic excuse is the shop-worn comparative advantage argument, which even mainstream economists have begun admitting does not apply when factors of production can be transferred through capital mobility. Competitive or absolute advantage is the basic principle governing international trade today, and not comparative advantage. This is not a partisan point, but one of pure applied economics.

Illiberal trade deals that do not capture market liberalization parity, failure to enforce intellectual property rights, attempts to maintain both fiscal ill discipline and dollar hegemony, and attempting to justify trade deficit imbalances by suggesting that secondary market capital purchases of bonds and already issued stocks can create as much business expansion rather than financial speculation ... these are all factors in what makes the current free trade argument bankrupt.

Your brother may not be able to explain why his taking a German job and seeing American jobs shipped out are bad, but he knows it ... and in this case it is actually true. The solution of course is not protectionism, but it is a false dichotomy to suggest that there is only free trade as we know it and protectionism and no other choices at all.

In my experience, sometimes the public is just dead wrong, superstitious, or bigoted. Or suckers ready to be taken by the next snake oil salesman or panderer. However, sometimes they are right and yet inarticulate in their ability to state what they see clearly and yet cannot intellectually justify.

A year ago I heard from small farmers, bankers, resteraunt owners, etc. telling me that the Main Street economy was shot all to hell and gone. This year, I hear that while the financial situation has eased up mostly even in small towns in the midwest most of the growth is in hyped projects like real estate speculation.

This is not a healthy, stable, growing economy. And trade as it now exists, is part of the problem, in part because it transfers capital from industry to financial speculation and lending to the government.

“Dave seemed to imply that Ruy Teixeira is arguing that Dems should cave to Nader, when in fact Ruy T. recently said the exact opposite: http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000432.shtml”

I meant no such thing. Ruy Teixeira also co-authored “Why the White working Class Still Matters: America’s Forgotten Majority.” He and Joel Rogers clearly encourage liberal activists to exploit the caucasian blue collar’s fear of job loss. And this is exactly what John Kerry is doing in Ohio---perhaps the key state in his campaign strategy.

“Hmm, if Kerry is as protectionist as some here fear, I sure doubt that he'd be getting all those atta boys from all those foreign leaders he's been talking to.”

Oh my God, do you mean that John Kerry is lying to those blue collar workers in Ohio? Is he saying different things to keep everybody happy? I am utterly shocked. Will the real Senator Kerry please stand up?

“Trade is good for us if we are confident and strong, and of course it would be un-American not to believe in our confidence and strength.”

I’m sorry but I never lie about job creation---and job destruction issues. Some people are sometimes severely hurt during the churn process. Thus, some courage is necessary.

“A year ago I heard from small farmers, bankers, resteraunt owners, etc. telling me that the Main Street economy was shot all to hell and gone.”

Well, they were certainly wrong regarding the overall economy. Most people are doing quite well. The unemployment rate is only 5.6%.

Angry Bear wrote (quoting then Candidate Bush’s campaign website):

"Governor Bush believes the United States will continue to be prosperous and competitive in the global marketplace if we embrace free trade. As President, he will work with Congress to restore Presidential trade negotiating authority and reassert American leadership on trade internationally. His priorities will include expanding free trade within our hemisphere, negotiating other regional and bilateral market-opening agreements, supporting the entry of China and Taiwan into the World Trade Organization, launching an ambitious new round of global trade talks, and enforcing American laws against unfair trade practices. Governor Bush believes that free trade is “a forward strategy for freedom,” and that as American goods and services enter foreign countries, so, too, do American values."

Looks like you missed the part where then Candidate Bush said he favored “enforcing American laws against unfair trade practices” such as the “anti-dumping” laws, which were the basis for the steel tariffs. In which case your claim that Bush was an “established liar” on trade was refuted by your own source.

I hope that you now have the integrity to retract your previous statements as to do otherwise would be libelous.

The Bush statement I quoted is pro free trade one and any other interpretation is silly or willfully disingenuous -- phrases like "embrace free trade" and "expanding free trade within our hemisphere" should tip you off that the language is pro free trade.

You grab one phrase about "unfair trade practices" and accuse me of libel?

Fine. It's your turn to give a source: What evidence do you have that anti-dumping was the basis for steel tariffs? Who was dumping? Was it both Britain and Japan, because both got hit with tariffs. What court, hearing, panel, or commission ever established a dumping case? (And no, Bush saying so isn't evidence.)

It was a calculated political response to tough times in the US Steel industry (the "safeguard provisions") -- read it from Zoellick himself at http://www.useu.be/Categories/Trade/Steel/Mar1202ZoellickSteelFinancialTimes.html.
Even conservatives, at least the ones outside Ohio and Pennsylvania (e.g., Dan Drezner as I recall), lambasted the tariffs at the time.

Finally, who was dumping textiles on the US? See, for example, http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/hood200311210902.asp.

AB

What's wrong with trade deficit? Foreigners are paying us to consume goods from them. They invest their money in our T-bills, which, if our economy goes south, would carry a lower interest rate, that would hurt them. Europeans keep their money strong on the assumption that their strong currency would replace ours as the world's currency. But the Chinese peg their money to ours, they cannot afford to see our money devalue. The Saudis, the Kuwatiis, and now the Iraqis would not switch from the US$ to Euro as the currency upon which to price their oil. Remember eons ago, the doomsayers said that when the Japanese economy went south, they would cash in their T-bills and that would pull our economy down with them? That didn't happen, did it? I believe trade deficit hawks should rethink their thinking.

When I see I dead horse, I beat it.

CalPundit's latest post (http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003459.html) addresses free trade and Bush's flip-flops thereon. Included is this Bruce Bartlett quote: "From the point of view of trade, it is the worst administration since Herbert Hoover helped bring on the Great Depression by signing the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930." (http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200311240854.asp)
AB

Oldman,

Forgive the delay in responding to your (as always) thoughtful probings. Hubby is in Europe this week and I am single momming it. My brother would be pleased to see you ride to his defense. You know that I am no pure-bred free marketeer, though I do find myself swayed by the unwavering cheerleaderism of smart people like Dan, my husband, the editors of the Economist and other who stand in that corner. No wonder I am periodically scolded by big bro and Oldman.

I think there are serious reasons why a pure free market system will never exist and why it is dangerous to assume one would even be desirable. If service jobs add more value than manufacturing, should we become a purely service economy? This is absurd, as it presumes perpetual peace and international harmony (any signs of that on the horizon?).

Manufacturing, as I hear endlessly from my brother, is a complex process, requiring intricate networks of suppliers, customers, skilled workers, engineers and (hopefully) knowledgeable management. If the system breaks down, as it may be doing now in this country, it will not be a matter of just building a few new factories to get it back going. This is a worry.

We also know that certain regions, cities, states are disproportionately impacted by these changes, and because of our arcane political system, folks in DC may not care TOO much, because they can be offset by supporters elsewhere. We can and do write off entire parts of the country. This is unsustainable and dangerous, in addition to being stupid and unkind.

The point I wished to make, Oldman, is that even people who are capable of adapting and rolling with the punches (and whatever the whiners on tv say, that includes most people in this country) resent the hell out of being expected to do so on a continual basis. It's the equivalent of being told, upon arriving in your new home, "Watch your back and don't unpack your bags. Oh, and welcome."

Still, like other posters here, I'm not convinced that Kerry could or would do much better than Bush in this area. I'm waiting to hear his plan and keeping my voting finger in shape.

Angry Bear wrote:

The Bush statement I quoted is pro free trade one and any other interpretation is silly or willfully disingenuous -- phrases like "embrace free trade" and "expanding free trade within our hemisphere" should tip you off that the language is pro free trade.

And phrases like “enforcing American laws against unfair trade practices” should tip you off that Bush as a candidate explicitly stated he was also in favor of “laws against unfair trade practices.”

You grab one phrase about "unfair trade practices" and accuse me of libel?

I offered you the chance to retract your earlier statement in which you accused then candidate Bush of being an “established liar” on trade because he imposed steel tariffs. Your own source showed that even as a candidate, Bush came out in favor of “enforcing American laws against unfair trade practices” – one of the most prominent of which is the Anti-Dumping Act, which was the legal basis for the steel tariffs. Hence Bush obviously did not lie and your charge that he did was false. If you refuse to retract it when your own source shows that it was false, then yes, your comments are then libelous.

Fine. It's your turn to give a source: What evidence do you have that anti-dumping was the basis for steel tariffs?

That’s easy:

The U.S. tariffs were imposed in March of 2002, under section 201 of the U.S. Anti-Dumping Act.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20031202-012501-3172r.htm

Since the legal basis for the steel tariffs was a law against “unfair" trade practices which then Candidate Bush supported, it was perfectly consistent for later President Bush to enforce such a law when asked. Personally, I find anti-dumping laws to be of questionable economic value (although I have little doubt that other nations, particularly Japan subsidize their exports up the wazoo) and for steel tariffs in particular. However, it appears that Mr. Bush used the temporary steel tariffs to get the Trade Promotion Authority (which his predecessor failed to get largely due to opposition in his own party) which he has been using to push for more liberalized trade with Latin America and Africa (something he also campaigned on). In which case he appears to have used this particular law against “unfair” trade practices to achieve a greater, long-term goal of freer trade.

Neither candidate has an unblemished record on free trade. Bush has lead the creation of numerous well-documented free trade agreements throughout the world. He's also imposed a couple of very specific, temporary protectionist measures (which I disagree with) basically intelligent political if unwise economic moves.

The idea that George W. Bush's administration is "protectionist" by almost any definition is laughable. His actions (although slightly tainted) are consistently pointing in one direction.

Nobody on this planet (probably not even Kerry) knows what his real position is on trade. He doesn't appear to have put much effort into trade over the years other than showing up for votes on occassion. After the Clinton experience, the Democrats are very interested in ideologically "flexible" candidates (which Clinton was the master at taking diametrically opposed positions on issues within months or years of each other), and they have certainly gotten one. I don't have any clue what John Kerry's position on free trade is. He has generally voted for free trade, but his rhetoric suggests that, like his vote for the Iraq war, he is now remourseful about it. What are we supposed to learn from that?

David Thomson:

"The Bill Clinton of 1992 is too conservative for today’s Democrat Party loyalists. "

Actually the Bill Clinton of 1996 is too conservative for the Democrat loyalists. The Bill CLinton of 1992 sounded exactly like the John Kerry of 2004: "Managed trade", "Industrial policy" eliminate "unfair" trade practices, review all trade agreements, etc,etc,etc.

Be careful, when you are trying to describe Bill Clinton's positions on anything you need to VERY specific about exactly when you are talking about. In those 4 years he flipped his position on lots of issues like trade, budget deficits, and even taxes (he actually signed a cut in the capital gains tax, something B.C.V.1992 would have said favored the "rich" and would thus be unfair)

Whole books could be written on this fascinating subject and still it would not be clear. Your misunderstanding is, well.... understandable.