By Siobhan Hughes And Gerald F. Seib
President Barack Obama escalated a public feud over
international trade with the liberal wing of his own party, a brawl
that threatens to undermine one of the key goals for the White
House this year.
The schism over trade widened with several testy exchanges this
week between Mr. Obama and his liberal base, including remarks
Friday in which the president said critics were mischaracterizing
the deal.
At the heart of the fight is the 12-nation Trans-Pacific
Partnership trade deal and the push in Congress to approve "fast
track" legislation to expedite passage of the deal later this year.
But the tussle touches on longstanding divisions over trade among
Democrats.
In an attempt to assuage critics, Mr. Obama said Friday that the
Pacific deal wouldn't repeat what he called the mistakes of earlier
trade deals, particularly the 1994 North American Free Trade
agreement between Mexico and Canada that was championed by
President Bill Clinton and passed with more Republican than
Democratic votes in Congress.
"When I listen to critics of this deal--and they are friends of
mine--what I primarily hear are criticisms of Nafta," Mr. Obama
said, promising that the Pacific pact "will end up being the most
progressive trade agreement in our history."
The president's struggles to win over traditional allies have
been particularly vivid in his interactions with lawmakers from the
Congressional Black Caucus, which numbers 42 Democrats in the
House. As with many other Democrats, caucus members focus on the
fear of job losses in their districts.
"I'm with him on probably just about everything," said Rep.
Joyce Beatty (D., Ohio), who noted "a greater responsibility to my
constituency" to explain why she was leaning against the president
on trade.
Nearly all top Democrats in the House and Senate, as well as a
number of prominent liberals, such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren of
Massachusetts, have expressed skepticism or outright opposition to
the fast-track legislation in recent days. Many are also opposed to
further opening trade with Pacific trade partners.
Even Hillary Clinton, who promoted the Pacific deal during her
four years as Mr. Obama's secretary of state, now hasn't taken a
position on the pact, saying she wants to see the details of how it
will protect jobs and advance American interests.
Complex trade deals are traditionally negotiated in secret, with
their voluminous details released only upon completion.
Still, Ms. Warren and other Democratic critics have accused the
administration of a lack of transparency in negotiating the Pacific
pact with Japan, Australia, Chile, Vietnam and eight other
countries. "The government doesn't want you to read this massive
new trade agreement," Sen. Warren wrote in a letter Wednesday to
supporters. "It's top secret."
Mr. Obama's attacks on the liberal wing of the Democratic base
have gotten increasingly pointed as he has sought to blunt the
impact of the strong liberal pushback against the trade deal. The
first shot came Tuesday, when Mr. Obama said in a MSNBC interview
that critics on the left "don't know what they're talking about,"
and labeled Ms. Warren as "wrong on this."
The president escalated the battle on Thursday in remarks to
Organizing for Action, a nonprofit that grew out of his
presidential campaign organization, when he urged critics to "look
at the facts--don't just throw a bunch of stuff out there and see
if it sticks."
He even compared liberal critics to former Alaska Republican
Gov. Sarah Palin, saying their opposition was similar to her
assertion that his overhaul of the health-care industry would
include "death panels."
Progressives have taken umbrage, and say Mr. Obama's argument
would be stronger if he publicly released the negotiating text that
will form the basis of the 12-nation trade deal.
"American workers who have lost their jobs due to trade deals
are understandably skeptical," said Eric Hauser, communications
director for the AFL-CIO, the labor federation that includes
millions of workers, in a statement. "The best way to regain
workers' confidence is to release the text, not scold the critics,"
he said.
As Mr. Obama seeks to win over supporters for his trade agenda,
the math looks particularly tight in the House. Lawmakers must
first pass a fast-track bill, which would open the way for the
Pacific deal by ensuring it would go to Congress for an up or down
vote, without amendments.
The Senate Finance Committee passed the fast-track bill this
week with overwhelming support, paving a path to the floor as early
as next week. The timing of a House floor vote was uncertain after
the House Ways and Means Committee passed the same measure with the
support of only two Democrats.
To make up for what could be dozens of Republican No votes in
the House, the administration may need to persuade 20 or more House
Democrats to vote Yes. The White House hopes some of those votes
will come from members of the black caucus. But the going has not
been easy.
Rep. Yvette Clarke of Brooklyn is a loyal Obama supporter, but
she found she couldn't say yes earlier this month when the
president engaged in some personal lobbying.
Traveling on Air Force One on a trip to Jamaica, the president
sat down with Ms. Clarke and made the case that failure to pass the
Pacific trade deal would erode U.S. leverage and give a leg up to
China.
Ms. Clarke promised to "go back and have a conversation with my
constituents," she said, recounting the conversation. But she isn't
optimistic: "The people in my district--they are radically against"
the Pacific trade deal, Ms. Clarke said in an interview.
Earlier this year, it seemed the caucus might be a productive
target, even though it had opposed Mr. Obama several years ago when
he won passage of pacts with South Korea, Colombia and Panama.
After a meeting in February between Mr. Obama and the caucus, the
group's leading voice on trade, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D., N.Y.),
emerged optimistic that an agreement that would satisfy both sides
was within reach.
"If they can make the trade bill look like a jobs bill, then
there's no problem," Mr. Rangel said he told the president,
predicting in a February interview that "somebody is going to be
drinking champagne when this thing is over."
But by last week, Mr. Rangel sounded pessimistic about finding
common ground with the Obama administration. He said the White
House hadn't offered him anything concrete that would assure
jobs--at least "nothing that I could explain to my voters."
Two-thirds of the House members in the caucus signed a letter to
Mr. Obama complaining that any trade deal would need to do more to
strengthen workers' rights. And only Rep. Gregory Meeks (D., N.Y.)
is on record in favor of the fast-track legislation, and Rep. Eddie
Bernice Johnson (D., Texas) is thought to be a swing vote.
"There's too much downward pressure on wages," said Rep. David
Scott (D., Ga.), a frequent ally of businesses who said he has made
clear that the White House shouldn't even bother trying to win his
vote.
On the call Friday, Mr. Obama said he was "not ideologically
wedded to free trade for free trade's sake." Upon entering office,
he said, "I was very clear about the need for us to change the way
we do business" on trade matters.
But of the Pacific agreement, he said, "I am confident that
American workers will win."