Defeat for Obama on trade as Democrats vote against him Read more

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, the main US labor federation, was uncharacteristically ebullient after the House voted down fast track on trade Friday, delivering a sharp rebuke to Barack Obama.

Trumka called the vote “a marvelous contrast to the corporate money and disillusionment that normally mark American politics today”. He added that “this was truly democracy in action”, a nod to the millions of Americans who had sent emails, met with lawmakers and marched in the streets to oppose fast track and Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a 12-nation pact that is being negotiated.

Trumka repeatedly boasted that never before had so many unions fought so vigorously on a trade issue – they fear TPP will cause job losses, push down wages and do little to increase worker protections in Asia. Labor’s threats to deny donations and campaign support to Democrats who embraced fast track pressured many lawmakers to vote against, and not risk labor’s ire. Fast-track authority would ease efforts to ratify TPP because it requires an up-or-down vote and prohibits amendments.

Even while rejoicing, many fast-track foes voiced fears that the war was not over –House Republicans said they would seek to pass a re-worked bill next week.

“I don’t think it’s over yet,” Tim Waters, political director of the United Steelworkers, told the Guardian. “They’re trying to do everything they can to get this back on track.”

Organized labor’s victory – one of its biggest triumphs in years – grew out of a new strategy the AFL-CIO adopted two years ago. Trumka announced that labor would henceforth seek to form broad coalitions out of recognition that it was no longer as powerful and was having a harder time securing legislation it supported.

The anti-fast track coalition was immense – labor was at its heart, and it included environmental, faith, immigrant and food safety groups. The coalition spanned the Democratic base, including 2,000 groups, among them the American Civil Liberties Union, Consumers Union, the Electric Frontier Foundation, Friends of the Earth and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

“This is the first time Congress considered a trade deal since we as a country became much more cognizant of surging inequality and the crisis in middle-class jobs,” said Joseph McCartin, a labor historian at Georgetown University. “The old playbook of the president being able to get the votes at the last minute doesn’t seem to apply anymore.”

Early on Friday, the vote seemed too close to call. But the outcome clarified when House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, a longtime Obama ally, took the floor.

“We need to slow this fast track down,” Pelosi said, revealing her long privately held position. “Whatever the deal is with other countries, we want a better deal for America’s workers.”

Pelosi criticized TPP for lacking transparency and doing little to protect the environment. Indeed, every progressive group seemed to have a complaint. Food and Water Watch worried TPP would allow in a flood of unsafe food from Asia; the Sierra Club feared it would increase natural gas exports; and the Feminist Majority disliked joining a trade deal with Brunei, which uses shariah law. Doctors without Borders protested that TPP would drive up pharmaceutical prices.

Obama and corporate America lobbied hard for TPP, saying it would open markets for business, expand exports, create jobs and assure that the US, not China, sets future trade rules for Asia.

Obama met with House Democrats on Friday morning, telling them he has been allied with them on labor rights, environmental issues and other matters – and he needed their vote.

Peter DeFazio, an Oregon Democrat, came away angry, telling reporters: “He’s ignored Congress and disrespected Congress for years and then comes to the caucus and lectures us for 40 minutes about his values and whether or not we’re being honest by using legislative tactics to try and stop something which we believe is a horrible mistake for the United States of America, and questions our integrity. It wasn’t the greatest strategy.”

In complicated wrangling, House Speaker John Boehner sought to enact fast track coupled with trade adjustment assistance – which many Republicans saw as too generous for unemployed workers and many Democrats view as too stingy. That bill was defeated, 302-126, but later the House approved a stand-alone fast-track bill, 219-211, largely through Republican votes. But that bill is problematic because it differs from the Senate-approved bill, which includes trade adjustment assistance.

In his Saturday radio address, Obama says: “On Friday, Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to help the United States negotiate new trade deals that are both free and fair – deals that expand opportunity for our workers and our businesses alike. And that’s good.”

“These kinds of trade deals,” he continued, “say no to a race for the bottom, for lower wages and working conditions. They’re about starting a race to the top, for higher wages, and better working conditions, stronger environmental protections, and a smarter way to crack down on countries that break the rules of the global economy.”

Thea Lee, an AFL-CIO trade expert, had a different take.

“The Obama administration concluded that they could win with Republican votes and could blow off their Democratic base,” Lee said. “That strategy blew up in their face.”

She said it shouldn’t be a surprise that fewer Republicans voted for fast-track than GOP leaders expected.

“At the end of the day, it was a win-win for Republicans,” she said. “If it goes down, it’s a huge, humiliating defeat for Obama. If it passes, their business donors are delighted.”

After the immense difficulties getting the Senate to approve fast track, Obama is reluctant to send the issue back there – especially a stand-alone bill, without trade adjustment assistance. That is likely to cost the bill the little Democratic support it had in the Senate.

“Right now it’s about as clear as mud what’s going to happen,” said Jason Stanford, spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Fast Track. “Do they immediately go to conference? Do they try to shove fast track through the Senate without trade adjustment assistance?

“Do they really get 90 members of the House to switch their votes to enact something by Tuesday?”