The Presidential candidates for the 2008 election are setting records for primary voter turnout and, especially in the Democratic wing, trying hard to differentiate themselves to discouraged voters with a myriad of sound-byte barrages.
Whether the Democratic candidate chosen to run for President is Illinois Senator Barack Obama or New York Senator Hillary Clinton, we have before us a race that has been characterized by clashes over issues ranging from Iraq to the faltering economy, with recent heavy emphasis on the latter. As early as two months ago, Americans were content to let the candidates duke it out on a variety of issues without undue pressure towards any particular topic. However, as the Republican race began to break down last month (and the Democratic candidates began to look more like a room of yes-men on many issues like health care and the Iraq war), the field has narrowed and so has the focus. A potent combination of plummeting consumer confidence, high commodity prices, and a continual influx of bad news from various financial sectors is partially responsible. But Americans have also realized that, in many respects, Obama and Clinton appear to have very similar economic platforms.
And since both candidates limit their specific economic goals to sporadic attempts to win over blue-collar workers on the stump by accentuating populist sentiment, their promises about job protection for American workers are starting to sound less like the free-trade advocates they once were. Indeed, protectionism is on the rise, and deservedly so. While rising exports have offset gloom somewhat, the data is clear: Americans aren't competing. Outsourcing overseas has damaged wage growth in the US since the the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed, while of course providing an entrance into the global economy for many countries. In the boom of the 90's this seemed like an appropriate way to economize and help develop poorer nations. But without the strong job security of that heyday, there is less of an impetus to share the wealth. Ironically, the boom in consumer spending that preceded the recent downturn helped fuel the present fire because, while US consumers spent more than ever before during the late 90's and early 2000's, everyone else was saving (and investing that savings in American companies). Now that the bubble has collapsed, and politicians have been lax in using that time of prosperity to shore up safety nets for workers. Now that President Bush's tax rebate has been signed, by May some results should start to emerge on its potential effect, which is expected to boost shaky consumer confidence and spending temporarily.
But sooner, in the months ahead, expect the presidential candidates (whoever they are) to begin talking more about job loss, wage caps, and other downsides to globalized industries. Polls show Americans as generally willing to pay more if they know it guarantees jobs. That alone is enough to warrant some change-ups on the stump, but whether it will materialize into changes in NAFTA or the breakdown of some of the gains (or inroads, depending on who you talk to) of globalization is up in the air for now. Voters won't let the candidates of the hook that easily.
Source: http://www.ArticlePros.com/author.php?Dane Smith
|
