Next month’s election could prove decisive on something that has nothing to do with Iraq, control of Congress, or the House page program. At stake? The free-trade consensus in the Senate that has ensured easy passage of every measure liberalizing trade put forth by the past two administrations.
Democrats only need six seats to gain a majority in the Senate, but the election of five new Democrats and one independent in particular would have even greater ramifications. Should seats currently held by free-traders in Ohio, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Rhode Island, and Missouri go to “fair traders” — and should the sour environment for Republicans prevent them from gaining any seats from Democrats — the bipartisan commitment to free trade in the Senate would almost certainly end, torpedoing the prospects for any significant legislation in President Bush’s final two years and perhaps longer while fundamentally altering the character of the upper chamber.
Since NAFTA, the House has been the true battleground on trade votes. Because they represent regional populations with less varied industry, members of the House, regardless of party, are more responsive to the unique dictates of their district’s economy. So while a representative from, say, a textile-heavy district may oppose a free trade agreement, a senator from that same state may, seeing the broader benefits for his constituency, support such a measure.
Indeed, every major piece of trade legislation pushed by the Clinton and Bush administrations has sailed through the Senate, regardless of which party was in power, while facing a tougher road in the House. In 1993, NAFTA passed the Democratic-held Senate by a 21-vote margin, but with only 34 votes to spare in the 435-member House, also controlled by Democrats. “Fast-Track” trade authority was similar. President Clinton sought but never got this tool — granting the president authority to negotiate agreements that Congress can then only consider in an up-or-down vote — and a GOP-held House passed it by only three votes in a nail biting, late-night session in 2002. The margin a week later in the Democratic-controlled Senate? Thirty votes.
The pattern is waning, though. Whether it was a more robust lobbying effort by organized labor, a changing Senate, an unpopular Republican president, legitimate policy concerns or a reflection of the increased partisanship on Capitol Hill, CAFTA passed by just 10 votes, 55-45, in the GOP-held Senate last July.
Just like current control of the Senate, a six-vote change would make all the difference.
And six of the leading Democratic challengers this cycle have either been anti-free-trade leaders, placed economic populism front-and-center in their campaigns or would likely be predictable “no” votes on any major trade deal.
Rep. Sherrod Brown (D.) of Ohio is one of the top free-trade opponents in the House. Representing an Akron-area district hit hard by the closure of steel, tire, and auto plants, Brown led the opposition to CAFTA last year and was equally vocal in his resistance to NAFTA and fast-track. He has repeatedly touted his opposition to these measures in his tight battle with incumbent Sen. Mike DeWine, who has backed every important trade bill since his election to the Senate in 1994.
A self-proclaimed Socialist, Rep. Bernie Sanders (I.) has been a thorn in the side of corporate America during his 16 years as Vermont’s lone representative in the House. He’s seeking to replace retiring Sen. Jim Jeffords (I.). While Jeffords caucuses with the Democrats, he has been a fairly reliable free-trade supporter. Meanwhile, Sanders — the heavy favorite — would stand aside Brown at the vanguard of “Fair Trade” caucus in the Senate.
Joining them would be Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey. Like his late father and namesake, a former Keystone State governor, Casey is an old-fashioned Democrat. Culturally conservative (pro-life, pro-gun) like many of the traditional Democrats who populate central and western Pennsylvania, Casey leans left on economics. He is now airing an ad statewide promising to “oppose any trade law that sends American jobs overseas.” Labor is going all-out for Casey in his high-profile campaign against conservative Sen. Rick Santorum (R.). Expect Casey to return the favor on any trade bill that comes before the Senate in the likely case he knocks off Santorum.
Though best known from his portrayal in the national media as a Vietnam war hero and lapsed Republican, Virginia Senate candidate James Webb’s passions are not just limited to his opposition to the war in Iraq. Running as a Democrat, Webb sought to prove his partisan credentials to party faithful by attacking his primary opponent for supporting free trade. Since then he has framed his campaign against Allen as part of a Jacksonian quest to return power from the “corporate aristocracy” — which he says the incumbent represents — to the forgotten middle and lower class, going so far as to use a chamber of commerce debate in front of northern Virginia business executives to highlight the importance of collective bargaining. Such populism has never played well in Virginia, but Allen’s bumbling campaign and Virginia’s changing demographics put this free-trade seat in jeopardy.
Neither Sheldon Whitehouse, who’s taking on incumbent Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island, nor Claire McCaskill, who’s challenging Republican Sen. Jim Talent in Missouri, have focused on trade issues, but both have made clear they’ll be a reliable Democratic vote on such matters should they win their very competitive races. Moreover, both come from states where unions have considerable political sway.
Regardless of what happens with the Senate, a Democratic-controlled House would be unlikely to bring up trade legislation likely to raise the ire of organized labor. Democrats, though, aren’t likely to hold the House by much if they do take the majority, and Republicans would have good odds in retaking control by running against Pelosi and her liberal allies in 2008; a task made even easier if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is atop the ticket.
A change in the Senate, however, would be unlikely. In 2008, 21 Republicans are up for reelection compared to just 12 Democrats. Of these 12 Democrats, many represent safe seats. So for at least four years, should these six Democrats be elected, the Senate is likely to be run by current Minority Leader Harry Reid — an opponent of NAFTA, fast-track, CAFTA and every other major piece of trade legislation that he’s seen in his 20 years in the Senate.
This resurgent populism does not appear to be limited to only the congressional wing of the new (small “n”) Democratic party. Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democratic “it boy” of the moment, summed up his party’s post-Clintonian view on trade in a glowing profile in the New York Times magazine earlier this month.
“I was a critic of Nafta, I was a critic of Cafta and I’ll be a critic of Shafta.”
– Jonathan Martin is a staff writer for National Journal’s “The Hotline.”