Winning congressional approval of the NAFTA treaty should be a chip shot. Economically, the evidence is overwhelming that the pact to lower trade barriers with Mexico and Canada will have no great consequence for the United States; whether or not it passes, the boom in U.S.-Mexico trade is here to stay. Politically, the opposition, stretching from former Ronald Reagan aide Pat Buchanan to civil-rights leader Jesse Jackson, is badly disunited. But political misjudgments in the White House have left Clinton mired deep in a bunker. Some advisers are unhappy with the pact and others counsel Clinton to postpone it to focus attention on his health-care reform. Doubts are growing that the president has the stomach for a prolonged fight. Asks one Democratic consultant: “How does the president convince the country if the people surrounding him don’t really believe in it?”
Since President Bush signed the pact last December, labor unions, some environmentalists and an array of self-appointed advocates of the public interest, from Ross Perot to Ralph Nader, have linked NAFTA with environmental damage, the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs and sundry other ills. Candidate Clinton avoided endorsing the pact last year, insisting that changes were required to make it acceptable. Once in office, he sought to placate NAFTA’s opponents by demanding side agreements obliging Mexico to improve environmental and labor standards. Those accords have satisfied most big environmental groups, but they have not swayed labor or changed many votes in Congress. And by putting NAFTA on hold, Clinton gave the critics time to organize.
Clinton’s hesitant embrace has compounded the error by sowing confusion on Capitol Hill. Congress always swarms to attack trade legislation; no matter what the details, the chance to cast a well-publicized “no” vote in defense of endangered local broommakers and pistachio growers is hard to pass up. But while these attacks play well in hometown papers, they are normally part of a carefully staged ritual whose outcome is never in doubt. The president plays a critical role: by vigorously defending the broad national interest in freer trade, he gives members cover to vote against protectionist forces back home. Clinton has failed to play his part, leading even free-trade-oriented legislators to turn tail. “Is the president behind this effort or not?” demands Rep. David Dreier, a California Republican. “That’s really the question.”
Last week, with less than one third of the House of Representatives on record in support of NAFTA, the White House finally realized that matters had gotten out of hand. U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor took to the “Larry King Live” show–a favorite Perot forum–to argue for it. Kantor and Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen summoned top officials throughout the government for a NAFTA pep talk. This week come two days of a nationwide hard-sell campaign by Clinton and his cabinet. But NAFTA backers are nervous that the unveiling of Clinton’s health-care plan next week will push trade back into limbo. “The question is whether he sustains his involvement,” says one Democratic congressman. “As long as he does, we’ll get the support.”
The answer will determine far more than the fate of NAFTA. The global GATT talks, which would lower foreign barriers to U.S. service industries and farm exports, won’t come to a conclusion unless Clinton assures other countries that Congress will approve; NAFTA is a test. And a defeat on trade would bode ill for Clinton’s ability to muscle even more contentious issues, such as his health-care plan, through Congress. Unpopular as NAFTA may be, there may be no alternative to standing and fighting.
