What would Jonathan Rauch say about this?
Barack Obama’s ambitions to pass sweeping new free trade agreements with Asia and Europe fell at the first hurdle on Tuesday as Senate Democrats put concerns about US manufacturing jobs ahead of arguments that the deals would boost global economic growth.
It is possible, of course, that in the end the bill will pass. This could just be stage-management on the part of various parties who want to embarrass the President and/or make side deals.
He might say “Building package deals often requires floating trial balloons, trading across multiple priorities and constituencies, and assuming that nothing is settled until everything is settled… In full public view, complicated deal-building is hard to do, indeed usually impossible; therefore machines tend to prefer privacy”
Who are we thinking is the amateur in this case, the career congressmen eyeing the next election or the lame duck President?
This columnist does not seem to understand that insults and strawman arguments, rather than persuasion and compromise, are Obama’s modus operandi.
Ah, but now the target is Democrats: did they really believe they were exempt from his sting?
http://observer.com/2015/05/obama-hurls-insults-at-liberals-on-trade/
The context of the hypothetical is that Obama is the “professional.” But this is further evidence that he is not outstanding at coalition-building and log-rolling. This is another example of why I think Clinton contrast is illustrative. He might not have considered this a critical goal, but if he did he’d be in ’round-the-clock meetings seeking some form of compromise.
The quote in the post raises this question of which item should be of primary concern to Congress in setting trade policy: (1) “global economic growth” or (2) jobs for Americans (or, more generally, the wellbeing of American society – which of course includes more than just manufacturing jobs)?
I would answer that (2) should be Congress’s primary concern (which does not necessarily mean the trade deal should be rejected).
With all the crises going in the world and in this country, worrying about whether the current president is being “embarrassed” (as he richly deserves) is frivolous and silly, but exactly what one would expect from his journalistic sycophants.
Split 2 into 2a jobs and 2b general wellbeing and the null hypothesis is 2b~=1
But protectionism doesn’t improve the well-being of American society or EVEN the well-being of American manufacturing workers generally. For example, while steel tariffs may help steel-workers, at the same time they hurt the prospects of other manufacturing workers whose industries use steel as an input (autos, appliances, construction machinery).
Maybe, but I don’t think the people peddling trade agreements like this give a second thought to the well-being of American society. And it depends on how you define “well-being.”