The Senates overwhelming vote in favor of normalizing trade with China was a milestone. It was a geopolitical watershed, an affirmation of free trade and a certain boost for U.S. exporters and the nation’s economy. Many OC tech manufacturers are likely to be among the biggest winners (see related story, page 6).
Having said that, let’s remember this is a political season. And let’s remember that one of the key themes of the upcoming elections is which candidates and which party will best foster and maintain prosperity.
So, what did the presidential candidates have to say about this historic vote? Bush gave it strong support. Gore gave it only qualified support. Here was a bipartisan vote hailed as cementing Clinton’s free-trade legacy, yet Gore found it necessary to grovel to Big Labor. He issued a statement about having to protect American workers’ rights. This was a gratuitous remark. Many of the lawmakers who voted for normalizing trade with China had qualms of one kind or another with the measure, but in the end weighed the pros and cons and voted “aye.” Among them, in the earlier House vote, was OC’s own Chris Cox, probably Congress’ leading critic of Chinese government espionage.
Is it unfair to read a lot into the remarks of Gore who, after all, didn’t get to cast a vote? (Oh, but wouldn’t it have been delicious if the Senate had locked on the measure 50-50 and Gore had been summoned to break the tie?) Well, then, let’s check out how Democrat veep candidate Joe Lieberman stood on the issue, since, as a U.S. senator, he was in position to actually cast a vote.
Oh, but he didn’t. He was out campaigning. Imagine that. A vote on an issue as big as trade with China, a legacy-builder for Clinton, and Joe couldn’t find time to leave the campaign trail. If the Senate roll call had involved, oh, say, gun control or movie violence or tobacco bans or Medicare benefits, do you think Lieberman might have found a way to fly back to Washington to cast a dramatic vote? You betcha.
This is significant. The Democrats want not only to keep the White House but to regain Congress. And to achieve the latter, they are hoping to exploit the perception that Clinton policies are responsible for our current prosperity. But if the Democrats regain the House, it is virtually assured that Dick Gephardt will once again be its Speaker. And guess how Gephardt voted on the China trade bill? He opposed it.
The Gore-Lieberman campaign is big into symbols, like kisses and pious pronouncements, so let’s judge them for a moment on those terms. Lieberman could have taken a symbolic stand,for free trade, for his president and for political courage. He could have signaled that his presidential ticket was willing to support enlightened economic policy even at the risk of offending a key constituency. Lieberman could even have given a nod to the importance of “doing the people’s business.” (Let those who have criticized Dick Cheney for missing too many Congressional votes now either cease, add Lieberman to their rant or admit their political hypocrisy.)
Instead, on the China vote, there was no symbolism from Gore-Lieberman, just a duck for cover. You think guys who cower in a campaign will behave differently when they’re in office, being stared down by a Gephardt-and-Daschle-led Congress?
If you do, then you probably believe that a kiss makes everything all right.
