Kirk’s Nomination As Trade Rep Causes Concern For Labor, But Are They Warranted?

Former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk’s pro-NAFTA stance from his time as mayor and his failed 2002 U.S. Senate bid are causing some concern for organized labor. But, is that concern warranted?

The Hill reports:

President-elect Obama’s plan to nominate former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk to be his U.S. trade representative is a worry for organized labor.

[...]

Kirk is a worry for labor because he does not have a record of criticizing trade deals, according to Thea Lee, a lobbyist for the AFL-CIO.

“We want someone who will take trade in a different direction,” said Lee. “He doesn’t have much of a record. That’s a concern.”

Kirk, a former Senate candidate, has spoken out in favor of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and permanent normal trade relations with China. Labor unions believe NAFTA and the China trade legislation have cost the U.S. thousands of jobs.

It is true, as was noted by the bloggers at The Custom-House, that Kirk has little international or trade experience.
However, as is the case with many folks who held public office or were in the public eye in the 1990s and early part of this decade, Kirk’s position has likely evolved. Simon Lester at the International Law And Policy Blog noted:

But his position is very different now, and times have changed, so presumably he will be saying different things….I think it’s safe to say that his views on trade are going to be pretty similar to Obama’s.

More on the evolution of Kirk’s views on trade from The Custom-House:

In this CNN Situation Room transcript from March 3, 2008, Kirk KIRK refers to the need to change the atmosphere in Washington to bring about a “more responsible trade policy.” (”I love you, Congresswoman. You’re a great friend. But the reality is people care more about believing and knowing that we’re never going to get a health care bill. We’re never going to have a more responsible trade policy if we don’t change the climate in Washington.”).  So he’s no fan of the Bush Administration’s approach to trade policy.

The fears of organized labor are not unfounded. But, there are legions of politicos–including Democrats–who supported NAFTA through the 1990s and in the early part of this decade. And, in Texas, moreso than most places, NAFTA was popular far longer than it was in other places in the nation. Again, The Custom-House noted this during the Presidential Primaries earlier this year:

There are parts of Texas where they like NAFTA.  Consequently, despite poll results showing that a plurality of likely Texas Democratic voters disapprove of NAFTA, Clinton and Obama have toned down there rhetoric…

And from the Wall Street Journal at the same time:

After weeks of hammering the North American Free Trade Agreement on campaign stops in Ohio, the Democratic presidential candidates are singing a different tune in Texas.

Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have had to adjust their messages as they have shuffled between hard-hit Ohio and robust Texas, where Nafta is largely seen as an economic boost to the state’s border communities.

Thus, to consider that Kirk’s 2002 senate race opinions–and those as Mayor of Dallas–are reflective of what he believes today, is a stretch. Labor at the national level may wish to take a closer look at the dynamic of the electorate in Texas–and the pro-NAFTA sentiment that existed here for so long–before passing final judgment on Kirk.

Tweet This Post   Ping This Post

Bookmark It