The Audacity of Hope

all the soaring rhetoric, the orange banners, the demonstrations, and Yushchenko’s
courage, Ukraine still found itself at the mercy of its former patron.
A nation that can’t control its energy sources can’t control its future. Ukraine may have
little choice in the matter, but the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth surely
does.
EDUCATION. SCIENCE AND technology. Energy. Investments in these three key
areas would go a long way in making America more competitive. Of course, none of
these investments will yield results overnight. All will be subject to controversy.
Investment in R & D and education will cost money at a time when our federal budget
is already stretched. Increasing the fuel efficiency of American cars or instituting
performance pay for public-school teachers will involve overcoming the suspicions of
workers who already feel embattled. And arguments over the wisdom of school
vouchers or the viability of hydrogen fuel cells won’t go away anytime soon.
But while the means we use to accomplish these ends should be subject to vigorous and
open debate, the ends themselves shouldn’t be in dispute. If we fail to act, our
competitive position in the world will decline. If we act boldly, then our economy will
be less vulnerable to economic disruption, our trade balance will improve, the pace of
U.S. technological innovation will accelerate, and the American worker will be in a
stronger position to adapt to the global economy.
Still, will that be enough? Assuming we’re able to bridge some of our ideological
differences and keep the U.S. economy growing, will I be able to look squarely in the
eyes of those workers in Galesburg and tell them that globalization can work for them
and their children?
That was the question on my mind during the 2005 debate on the Central American Free
Trade Agreement, or CAFTA. Viewed in isolation, the agreement posed little threat to
American workers—the combined economies of the Central American countries
involved were roughly the same as that of New Haven, Connecticut. It opened up new
markets for U.S. agricultural producers, and promised much-needed foreign investment
in poor countries like Honduras and the Dominican Republic. There were some
problems with the agreement, but overall, CAFTA was probably a net plus for the U.S.
economy.
When I met with representatives from organized labor, though, they were having none
of it. As far as they were concerned, NAFTA had been a disaster for U.S. workers, and
CAFTA just promised more of the same. What was needed, they said, was not just free
trade but fair trade: stronger labor protections in countries that trade with the United
States, including rights to unionize and bans on child labor; improved environmental
standards in these same countries; an end to unfair government subsidies to foreign
exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports; stronger protections for U.S.
intellectual property; and—in the case of China in particular—an end to an artificially
devalued currency that put U.S. companies at a perpetual disadvantage.