One of Barack Obama’s last attempts to destroy America’s greatness economically is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Like NAFTA before it, the left, and Hillary, will argue that this is the evolution in global economics.
Hillary Clinton once endorsed the TPP as the ‘gold standard’ for global trade. While she argued in the debate that she didn’t call it the ‘gold standard’, but only ‘hoped’ it would be, fact checks show she did actually call it the ‘gold standard’.
And as Trump has said, once he pointed out the huge problems with the TPP, she changed her tune.
“I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages – including the Trans-Pacific Partnership”, she said at a campaign stop in Ohio back in August. “I oppose it now. I’ll oppose it after the election. And I’ll oppose it as President.”
So did Clinton flip on TPP? Context is key.
The deal would be the largest multilateral trade agreement ever negotiated, involving the U.S., emerging economies such as Vietnam and traditional trading partners including Japan, Canada and Mexico. It’s a major priority for the Obama administration, which sees the deal as key to cementing the president’s so-called pivot to the Asia-Pacific region. Obama hopes to persuade lawmakers to ratify it before year’s end, but Clinton’s opposition now exemplifies the political difficulty.
As a member of the Obama Cabinet in his first term, Clinton carried out the president’s priorities. Speaking on a trip to Australia in 2012 as negotiators from the partner nations were still deep in negotiations, she outlined the goals for it.
“This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field,” she said then1.
Since TPP is still in negotiation stage, we’ll leave judgment of it for later. However, it is worthy to note that Trump has clearly suggested that Clinton would backtrack on her rejection of it once in office. Of this, I have no doubt. She will suggest that whatever concerned her during the campaign has been resolved and she’ll be right back on the trail of being a globalist.
And there in lay the fundamental difference between what Hillary wants to do in trade deals vs. what Donald Trump wants to do. All Hillary’s trade deals will be rooted in her belief and goal for a global economy run by a global government for global purposes. As, with Barack Obama, Clinton’s interests lay first with the global community and somewhere down the line with the United States.
This is not to suggest she hates the United States. Nor does Barack Obama, for that matter. What they hate is how the United States, as it is now, stands in the way of the global progress, they and their global financiers desire. They want the US to prosper, but under a global umbrella.
Let me explain with a little more local example. Before the 17th Amendment was ratified, Senators were appointed by State Legislatures. Now, of course, they are elected in general elections by the people. You may wonder why that’s such a bad thing. After all, isn’t it always better for the people to do the voting?
Yes and no. In the case of the United States, our Constitution was designed to spread out and separate powers. The people’s representatives were elected every 2 years into the House of Representatives. The States were represented by the appointment of two Senators. And the Nation was represented by the President through the electoral college process.
All were either directly or indirectly voted on by the people. We’re all well aware that the president isn’t always elected by the popular vote. And, in fact, the so-called will of the people could be set aside, by the Constitution, through the electoral college.2
With the State Legislatures appointing Senators, they were assured that the interests of the State will represented in Congress. If it weren’t the Legislature could simply recall the Senator. Now, no matter what the Senator does, so long as he can convince the majority of state voters (usually the one with the most money) then they can keep their jobs.
This is exactly what is happening with trade agreements like TPP and other agreements. The global community is slowly forming their own version of the United States. And the United States is slowly, with the aid of globalists like Obama and Clinton, just becoming another state in that global union.
Donald Trump looks at trade not from a globalist’ perspective, but from a nationalist’s perspective. He understands that we are involved in a global economy. We have been for much longer than any of us have been alive. But when Donald Trump goes out to negotiate a trade deal he’s going out first as an American. Making sure that deal benefits us, our economy, our workers, our businesses and our people is most important to him.
Does he care about the global economy? Absolutely. He knows that a strong global economy aids Americans. But to him, that is secondary to making sure that we come first.
When he threatens tariffs, he does so, not because he wants to raise prices for products Americans buy, but because sometimes tariffs are necessary to show our trade partners that we are not happy with an unfair trade deal and we’re not playing games.3
The argument some have against tariffs is legitimate. If not used wisely, it could cause a ripple of negative financial effects. But when it comes right down to it, are you more at peace having a businessman in charge of our trade negotiations or would you rather have a globalist politician in charge?
3. Tariffs would be necessary in some cases “because they have to understand that we’re not playing games anymore,” – Tampa, FL rally August 24, 2016