Karl Rove’s playbook

Is there nothing Rove can’t do? He can even inspire Obama and Clinton.

I realize this is difficult for the NYT. Not all “bad” things are due to Karl Rove or George Bush.

There’s nothing like international trade to help bridge the nation’s ideological divide. As Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton travel the Rust Belt, the Democratic candidates seem to be eschewing the advice of their economic advisers and turning to Karl Rove’s playbook.

It was Mr. Rove who urged Dick Cheney in 2000 to forget the free trade spiel and promise voters in West Virginia that a Bush administration would protect American steel from cheap imports. “If our trading partners violate our trade laws, we will respond swiftly and firmly,” Mr. Cheney thundered.

Those words seem to echo in Mr. Obama’s attacks against “unfair” trade deals — including Nafta, Cafta and President Bill Clinton’s decision to establish regular trade relations with China. Mrs. Clinton seems to draw inspiration as well, railing to the Pennsylvania A.F.L.-C.I.O. against alleged dumping of Chinese steel: “When I’m President, China will be a trade partner not a trade master,” she said.

Such pandering may play on the stump, especially in Pennsylvania, where workers fear for their jobs as the country’s manufacturing base shrinks. Mr. Bush won West Virginia, only the fourth Republican to do so since 1932. Still, whoever wins in November would be foolish to choose protectionism.

Democrats need to tell voters the truth: First, trade is good for the economy, providing cheap imports and markets for exports, spurring productivity and raising living standards. And second, while trade can drive down some wages and displace some jobs, Democrats have real ideas to help workers cope. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama should base their approach on these ideas. They would not only make sound policy, they would also provide a competitive advantage over John McCain.

Fortunately, presidents don’t have as much power on these matters as candidates claim. When President Bush put stiff tariffs on imported steel in 2002, he infuriated European allies and then had to lift the tariffs when the World Trade Organization declared them illegal.

Senators Clinton and Obama know protectionism could have disastrous consequences. Do they really want a trade war with China, the United States’ second-biggest trading partner? Would they want to block a global trade accord designed to help the poorest countries?

Strengthening rules on workers’ rights in Nafta would be a good thing to do, on the merits. But it would do little to help American workers compete with cheaper Mexican labor. If a President Obama or a President Clinton were to fulfill their pledge to renegotiate the deal, he or she would quickly find that Canada and Mexico would want changes, too. Immigration reform would most likely top Mexico’s list. And if push came to shove, would either candidate take the country out of Nafta when about a third of its exports go to Mexico and Canada?

I’ve got to speak with the person giving out ‘committed free trader’ status, because we’ve made the admission requirements too lenient…

It isn’t even theoretically possible for the Democratic Party to be worse for the economy (not to mention every other facet of human life) than the Republicans have been, but I’m willing to listen if you have some actual statistical analysis to support your claims. From where I’m sitting, every single piece of evidence (you’ve seen the new chart from Bartels showing that Democrats do better for income growth for everyone than Republicans?) indicates that Democrats are quite simply better for the economy than Republicans, so where are your numbers? When do facts get in the way of ideology?