How NAFTA Broke American Politics

NAFTA emerged from earlier ideas about free trade championed by Ronald Reagan and other conservative economists.

Reagan, influenced by the likes of Milton Friedman, floated the idea of a North American free trade agreement back in 1979. His administration laid the groundwork for NAFTA by establishing a bilateral free trade agreement with Canada in the 1980s, which eliminated tariffs and duties, essentially paving the way for broader agreements.

NAFTA became a major issue in the 1992 presidential election, with the Democratic, Republican, and independent candidates taking different stances.

Republican candidate George H.W. Bush supported NAFTA, believing it would boost American exports and create jobs.

George H.W. Bush saw NAFTA as a natural extension of his presidential duties and pursued its negotiations. He championed signing the agreement, confident in its potential to cause an export boom and the flourishing of American jobs.

Independent candidate Ross Perot strongly opposed NAFTA, warning of a "giant sucking sound" of American jobs moving to Mexico.

Ross Perot, who had gained impressive traction for a third-party candidate, securing 19 percent of the popular vote, made his critical stance on NAFTA a cornerstone of his campaign. He is famously remembered for coining the phrase "giant sucking sound" to describe his prediction of job relocations to Mexico.

Democratic candidate Bill Clinton took a middle position, supporting NAFTA with separate side agreements to protect labor and the environment.

Bill Clinton, representing the New Democrats aiming to make the party more business-friendly, tried to strike a balance on ...

Dan Kaufman and Michael Barbaro discuss the profound impacts that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) had on the working class of the Rust Belt, plunging cities like Milwaukee into economic hardship and leaving workers grappling with the loss of identity and financial stability.

NAFTA accelerated the process of deindustrialization and the loss of manufacturing jobs in the Rust Belt

Kaufman explains how NAFTA signaled the outsourcing of good-paying manufacturing jobs from the Rust Belt states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, affecting cities such as Milwaukee, which once thrived as industrial powerhouses. Following the agreement, Milwaukee experienced accelerated deindustrialization with many of its manufacturing jobs disappearing.

Master Lock, known for their combination locks and a staple of Milwaukee manufacturing since the 1920s, moved production to Mexico to capitalize on lower-cost labor. This shift led to the closure of the iconic Milwaukee plant and the loss of hundreds of union jobs. By the time Chancy joined Master Lock in 2010, the number of positions had been drastically reduced to only a couple hundred union roles, a stark dip from the large workforce that existed before NAFTA.

Barbaro highlights the final chapter in the Master Lock Milwaukee story, confirming the plant's closure and the relocation of jobs predominantly to the company's Mexico facility. The move symbolizes a broader trend of manufacturing jobs leaving the United States in search of cheaper labor markets, driven by NAFTA's trade policies.

The psychological and economic toll of losing these jobs was devastating for workers

The psychological and economic effects of the plant's closure deeply affected workers like Chancey Adams, whose life revolved around his job at the Master Lock plant. After the plant shut down, Chancey faced difficult times as he struggled to find new work. In order to avoi ...

The political landscape in the United States saw a fundamental realignment in response to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), with significant shifts in the traditional bases of the Democratic and Republican parties.

NAFTA signaled a shift in the Democratic Party away from its working-class, labor-oriented roots towards a more business-friendly, technocratic orientation.

Following the introduction and implementation of NAFTA, the Democratic Party experienced a departure from its New Deal origins, traditionally associated with the working class, labor, and union support. Dan Kaufman explains that the party began to pivot toward the professional class, and became more closely aligned with corporate interests and the college-educated populace, including Wall Street figures.

Kaufman highlights the Clinton administration's rigorous push for NAFTA, which was emblematic of this transition. The administration leaned heavily on empirical studies and the consensus among experts to support NAFTA, with Vice President Al Gore notably defending the agreement on Larry King Live by citing Nobel laureates in economics. This approach signaled a departure from the party's previous labor orientation towards one favoring technocratic and professional class constituents.

The Clinton administration pushed hard to pass NAFTA, relying on expert opinion and dismissing the concerns of organized labor.

Despite strong opposition from organized labor and skepticism from the broader public—evidenced by polling data of the time—more than 100 Democratic lawmakers sided with President Clinton's pro-NAFTA stance. Kaufman notes that Clinton's support for such a business-oriented policy was indicative of the broader shift within the Democratic Party, a movement further underscored by Senator Chuck Schumer's remarks about appealing to moderate Republicans at the expense of blue-collar Democrats.

The Republican Party, traditionally the party of big business, began to embrace a more populist, working-class message in response to the backlash against NAFTA.

In the wake of negative public sentiment toward NAFTA, Kaufman suggests that the Republican Party began to rhetorically shift towards a politics that includ ...

Dan Kaufman delves into the enduring legacy of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and how its long-term effects on the American working class contributed to political upheaval, notably the rise of Donald Trump.

Despite renegotiating NAFTA as the USMCA, the underlying issues of deindustrialization and job loss in the Rust Belt remain unresolved.

Trump's presidential victory, which turned on wins in key states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—all heavily affected by NAFTA—is indicative of the unresolved issues of deindustrialization and job loss. Kaufman points out that companies like Stellantis and Master Lock continue to move production to Mexico, leaving workers unemployed and factories shuttered, highlighting that the economic pain felt by workers is still severe. A union official told Kaufman that many jobs might go to other locations, but the majority will be transferred to Nogales, Mexico, suggesting that the trade policies have not fully reversed the trends of offshoring and job loss.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties have shifted their messaging on trade, with Biden and Harris adopting a more pro-labor, anti-offshoring stance.

Kaufman remarks on the Democratic Party's shift toward a pro-labor stance, emphasizing the importance of creating well-paying jobs, especially for those without a college degree. This shift indicates an effort to address the industrial job loss that has continued despite renegotiations of trade agreements. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris even took steps to increase tariffs on certain Chinese products, building upon the precedent set by Trump. Biden, noted for his support of labor unions, made appearances on picket lines, though it's pointed out that he previously voted for NAFTA and the agreement establishing permanent normal trade relations with China.

However, the sense of betrayal runs deep among the working class. Disi ...