1994 was a watershed year for politics in this country. This was not just because of the November landslide for Republicans, but also because of two momentous pieces of legislation that were debated that year. On the one hand, there was NAFTA, which passed. On the other hand, there was Health Care reform, which failed. It was this pattern of legislation that I ultimately came to understand as the hallmark of Clinton's "third way." While Clinton sought increasing economic liberalism only when coupled with an expanded social safety net, more often than not the only thing that ever passed was increasing economic liberalism. This frequently meant that a Republican agenda passed through Congress even during a Democratic administration.

The only people who clearly benefit from "free trade" agreements are those with enough money to invest overseas. (I am not going to go into the arguments that claim that "free trade" is ultimately to the benefit of the many, but it should suffice to say that I don't buy them. After all, as a net importer of consumer goods and by far the largest consumer market in the world, it seems to me that it would not be difficult to demand that companies hire a certain percentage of American workers in order to have access to our markets, like Regan did with the auto industry in the 1980's). The people who undoubtedly benefit from such agreements also happen to be major political donors. It is probably horribly cynical of me to write this, but I came to believe that the main reason "New Democrats" bought into neo-liberalism was not because it appeals either to swing voters (it doesn't) or the Democratic base (it doesn't) and not because it improves standards of living across the board (it doesn't), but so that they were able to stay financially competitive with Republicans during the next election cycle. Coming out for free trade early in a campaign was like yeast for the New Democrats--it made the dough rise.

This was the hallmark of a bankrupt party to me. Democrats, at least those Democrats with the most power, were no longer sticking up for their base, the working class, the middle class, the people, the little guy, or the other America (use whatever formulation you desire). Perhaps more accurately, they were too weak to pass legislation that did support such groups, and too eager to compromise with Republicans on legislation that benefited political donors. It was a highly frustrating combination of impotence and constantly having to put up with "necessary evils."

Obviously, as this recent article by Brad Delong's makes clear, there are Democrats who truly believe that "free trade" is in the best of America and the world, and not just necessary in order to run a successful campaign. While I disagree with Brad on trade (which makes me a little nervous, considering that he knows more about economics than I probably ever will), I also no longer believe that the Democratic Party is being held hostage by corporate America. When McCain-Feingold was being crafted in the Senate a few years back, most Democrats supported it while also acknowledging that it would probably damage the Democratic Party's ability to stay financially competitive with Republicans. Russ Feingold, one of our finest Senators, argued that the bill would force Democrats to do what they should have been doing all along: rediscover and rebuild a base of small donors and political activists. Feingold was so goddamn right that I wish he would move to Pennsylvania. In the first major election cycle following McCain-Feingold, Democrats are more financially competitive with Republicans than ever before, and our volunteer base has exploded. As a party, even though we are awash in sums of money we never previously imagined were possible, we are actually freer of corrupting big-money interests than we have been in decades. The tens of millions of dollars people like you and me have poured into Democratic campaigns have made the party accountable to its activist, small donor base as much as any other interest you can name.

Now, this does not mean I expect a Democratic administration to solve our current trade problems. After all, Brad Delong is certainly right about one thing: outsourcing is coming, whether we like it or not. It will probably continue to increase whether we pass legislation in an attempt to reduce it or not. Ultimately, in order to effectively respond to an international problem--free moving, unregulated capital and the way capital is able to pit workers in different locales against one another, degrade working conditions, dominate governments, reduce safety nets and concentrate wealth in the hands of fewer people--an international response will be required. Any political party, union or other organization that is primarily American, if not entirely American, cannot adequately protect workers from an international problem. American unions need to become truly international unions, and American progressives need to work with progressives in political parties in other countries, possibly even to the point of considering partial mergers.

However, this does not mean we should not roll over and facilitate free investment agreements (which is what "free trade" agreements really are) as much as humanly possible. Even though in many ways free investment agreements simply sanctify what is already taking place, such agreements accelerate the process and carry with them dangerous, unforeseen side effects. Perhaps most disturbing of these side effects is the power of such agreements to transfer power away from democratically elected officials and toward unelected mega-investors (not unlike the problem Democrats had during the nineties).

Now that the Democratic Party has rediscovered the power of small donors and energized volunteers, I believe that it once again will be free to take a more skeptical and prudent approach to trade policy. This is enough to make me proudly proclaim that I am a Democrat, and to have hope for the future of the party. This primary season demonstrated that we have come a long way from the 90's when any form of opposition to "free trade" whatsoever immediately branded you as a fringe radical hopelessly clinging to a lost past. Still, much like Brad Delong, only from the other side of the issue, I don't expect that a Democratic administration will prevent me from banging my head against the wall when it comes to labor, trade or corporate regulation policy more than a few times over the next four years. After all, John Kerry did vote for NAFTA, and it took the John Edwardses and Howard Deans of the party to push him back in the other direction. We must support John Kerry, but we must keep prodding him as well. It is the way a Democrat shows love. It is the way we continue to demonstrate that we as a party are anything but bankrupt.