Sucking South: Socialists and Right-Wing Populists Unite Against NAFTA

The Switch

One of the biggest peculiarities in modern political debate is the drastic change in each major American constituency's views on NAFTA. In 1997 shortly after the passage of NAFTA, 33% of Americans who identified as Democrats felt the policy was good for the US while 42% of those who identified as Republicans felt NAFTA was good for the US. Interestingly, 60% of House Democrats voted no on NAFTA while 75% of House Republicans voted yes on NAFTA. What is even more interesting is that by 2017, 67% of Americans who identify as Democrats supported NAFTA, while 78% of Republicans opposed NAFTA. How do we explain this?

The Philosophies of NAFTA

There is largely two sentiments regarding NAFTA that have not changed since it was first debated in Congress. The pro-NAFTA side heralded the legislation as a boon to the entire North American economy, with President Clinton saying, "NAFTA means jobs, American jobs and good-paying American jobs." The anti-NAFTA side criticized the workers' protections in Mexico, feared a decline in bargaining power for labor unions, and infamously, third-party Presidential Candidate (both Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush supported NAFTA) Ross Perot said, "[T]here will be a giant sucking sound going south," implying that Americans would suffer immense job loss if the bill were passed.

The Realities of NAFTA

Proponents of NAFTA will point out that the agreement increased trade between the US, Mexico, and Canada from $290 billion in 1993 to $1.1 trillion in 2016. Furthermore, pro-NAFTA economists would point to the extra $127 billion introduced to the US economy by NAFTA, although that only amounts to about $400 per American. The overall argument for the pro-NAFTA side is that by moving manufacturing to Mexico, the entire US benefits from lower costs of goods.

Critics of NAFTA will point to the fact that the US experienced a net job loss of 600,000 workers after the implementation of the policy. One of the most nefarious effects of NAFTA was the well-documented fact that US manufacturers used the threat of moving their operations to Mexico to stomp out labor unions and reduce wages. The effects of NAFTA were also not felt evenly in the United States. Ohio lost 288,400 manufacturing jobs due to NAFTA (1 per 41 people) while Colorado lost just 5,174 manufacturing jobs (1 per 1,129 people).

Unlikely Allies

How is it that both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders oppose NAFTA? The simple answer is that Donald Trump appealed to a constituency that had already opposed NAFTA when it was passed, and Senator Sanders has opposed NAFTA his entire career. West Virginia was one of a few states whose entire (Democratic) congressional delegation voted against NAFTA, yet WV was Trump's second-best state in 2020. A similar trend is observed in North Dakota, Idaho, Kentucky, Alabama, South Dakota, Mississippi, Montana, Indiana, and Ohio. Unlike his Republican predecessors (who understood why the party supported free trade overwhelmingly), President Trump attacked NAFTA on the campaign trail in 2016, making him more akin to Barack Obama who did the very same in his campaign.

As for Democrat voters increasingly approving of NAFTA, this too is likely a result of a changing constituency. Since 2010, college-educated voters, who were the beneficiaries of NAFTA, have exponentially sided with the democratic party. The Democratic Party's constituency has shifted from laborers to the professional class and many of the former stereotypical Democratic voters are identifying as Republicans but retaining their anti-NAFTA views. This is exemplified by the fact that in 1992 George H.W. Bush won 24% of union households, while Donald Trump won 43% in 2016.

Another interesting component of the party switch on free trade is that the Democratic party's most prominent members, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, and Steny Hoyer all voted yes on NAFTA even though the majority of the party did not.

The Future of Trade-Based Politics

One of my largest fears as a working-class Democrat is that the Democratic party continues its march toward being the party of the professional class and leaving me and my kind behind. The parties used to be distinct in their financial backing and it was easy to understand where they would side. Folks like Bart Stupak garnered almost all of their campaign funds from labor organizations, and you knew he would side with the working class. In the modern political arena, regardless of the party, the financial interests of the nation's richest dominate political debate, completely dwarfing the influence of average Americans. The Democratic party, in understanding this reality has continually elevated candidates like Joe Biden, Dick Durbin, and Nancy Pelosi whose support for the working class is akin to a neglected ant farm. Although this reality is largely due to our barbaric campaign finance laws, we should not get cozy with our elected officials selling us down the river because that's the status quo.