The North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, has become one of the most contentious issues in recent American politics. It has also forged some of the most unusual of recent political alliances. Joined in favor of the treaty are, among others,, President Clinton and his administration, former Secretary of State and 1992 Bush campaign director James A. Baker II, and Republican House whip and firebrand Newt Gingrich. Allied against the proposed treaty are, among others, much of the American labor movement, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, and conservative columnist and 1992 Republican primary candidate Patrick Buchanan. If the treaty passes the House of Representatives, where the vote on it is scheduled for late November of 1993, President Clinton is likely to receive more support from Republicans than from members of his own party.
The following discussion argues that the merits of the case in favor of NAFTA are much stronger than the merits against it, and suggests that NAFTA has become a symbol, and in effect a hostage, of free-floating public anxiety about availability of jobs, the sluggish recovery from the recession of 1990-91, and the long-term stagnation of the American standard of living. Since all of the causes of this anxiety have developed without NAFTA, it is clear a priori that NAFTA cannot be the cause of them. Indeed, as we shall see, although it is ultimately impossible to predict the course of future events, enactment of NAFTA is far more likely to alleviate these conditions, directly and indirectly, and encourage a more rapid resumption of growth and job creation in the American economy, than it is to add to its difficulties.
Nevertheless, the opponents of NAFTA have successfully tapped into public anxiety to create a powerful emotional, if not logical, opposition to enactment of the treaty. In order to understand and make the case for the positive benefits of NAFTA, it is first necessary to address these ...