On Monday, Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton's pollster and architect of her "experience" message, was forced out of his role as her campaign's chief strategist.
Unless you obsessively follow the Democratic horserace, you probably missed this. But his departure is unlikely to have any impact on the Clinton campaign's message or strategy; she'll keep hammering away at her "Ready to Lead from Day One" theme and run more "3:00 a.m. Crisis Call" ads.
What is important is why Mr. Penn was thrown under the bus.
Mark Penn is the worldwide CEO of Burson-Marsteller, one of the world's largest public relations firms. In that capacity, he met with Colombian officials last Friday, who hired his firm to help them lobby for a free-trade agreement between Colombia and the United States.
This free-trade agreement - like most such agreements - displeased the Democratic Party's new big union puppetmasters. Two large labor organizations immediately called for Mr. Penn's resignation: Unite Here (which represents apparel, textile and hotel workers) and Change to Win (a coalition of unions including Teamsters, carpenters and service employees). Within days, he was gone.
The Democratic Party used to support free trade. Under Bill Clinton, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was passed, which eliminated trade barriers between Canada, America and Mexico and created the largest free-trade bloc in the world. Support for free trade was a key part of the "third way" espoused by influential Democratic organizations like the Democratic Leadership Council.
But now, we have two Democratic candidates who are hostile to new free-trade agreements and have pledged to renegotiate NAFTA. Clinton and Barack Obama are wrong to oppose the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which is a good deal for America. Currently, 92 percent of all Colombian exports to the United States are entered as duty-free under the Andean Trade Preferences Act. However, American exports to Colombia get hit with tariffs of up to 35 percent.
The free-trade agreement would get rid of those tariffs for American businesses, which would lead to more good American jobs. For example, Colombia imports heavy-duty trucks and Cat D-11 bulldozers. Those are made in two Caterpillar factories in Obama's home state of Illinois. The Colombian government puts a 15-percent tariff on the trucks and a five percent tariff on the bulldozers. A free-trade agreement would eliminate those tariffs and give American companies a competitive advantage. If Colombia signs such an agreement with another country first, American businesses would become uncompetitive because their competitors could offer the same product for a lower price.
America's labor leaders claim that they want a level playing field. They want more environmental protections and labor rights written into the agreement. These aren't unreasonable demands. However, the vast majority of Colombian imports to the United States presently do not have tariffs on them. The agreement, therefore, poses little threat to the rights of American workers. The only American industry that might suffer is U.S. sugar; there are large tariffs on imported sugar and so the free trade agreement will likely result in increased sugar imports from Colombia. Cheaper sugar means cheaper food, which will mean American consumers will have more cash to spend on other goods.
Instead of firing Mark Penn, Hillary should have stood up to the unions and supported the same sensible trade policies that her husband did. Free trade is good for America. Democrats should have the guts to say that, even if it is unpopular.
Xander Zebrose is a sophomore majoring in economics. He can be reached at Alexander.Zebrose@tufts.edu.
