Skip to main content
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track on the Olympic Games
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track onthe Olympics Games
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Canadians are all too familiar with the time-tested ritual of U.S. politicians trash-talking trade deals during presidential election years only to embrace said deals once in office.

Were some entrepreneurial genius to figure out how to bottle and export anti-trade hot air, the United States might even run a trade surplus – at least once every four years.

Usually, it's the Democrats who corner the market on this carbon-intensive gas. In 2008, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton endlessly slagged the North American free-trade agreement. Both vowed to renegotiate the Canada-U.S.-Mexico deal, while accusing the other of bluffing.

Story continues below advertisement

In office, of course, Mr. Obama didn't seek to redo NAFTA – indeed, he signed (and Congress ratified) free-trade deals with Colombia, Panama and South Korea – the latter being the most significant market-opening pact involving the United States since NAFTA's approval in 1993.

The Obama White House is now furiously lobbying Republican leaders in Congress to hold a ratification vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the vast 12-country trade deal (including Japan and Canada) that Mr. Obama is counting on to burnish his legacy. That would be the same deal Ms. Clinton, now her party's presumptive 2016 nominee, supported before she opposed.

As secretary of state during Mr. Obama's first term, Ms. Clinton deemed the TPP the "gold standard" among trade deals, with its added protection for unions and clamping down on child labour in participating countries such as Vietnam and Malaysia. She now says the final text of the deal contains "too many loopholes, too many opportunities for folks to be taken advantage of."

Ms. Clinton has stepped up her anti-trade talk since losing last week's Michigan primary to Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders. The idea that NAFTA caused Detroit's demise is deeply embedded in Democratic minds in the state, and Ms. Clinton has paid a price for speaking out of both sides of her mouth on trade.

Ms. Clinton's husband enacted NAFTA as president, and two years into the deal, she insisted that the agreement to end tariff barriers among the three countries was "proving its worth." As a senator in 2004, she said that, "on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York state and America." But by 2008, she had decided that the deal had not lived up to its promises, saying: "We will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it, and we renegotiate on terms that are favourable to all of America."

Ms. Clinton's past hypocrisy on trade is strangely comforting. Among the top presidential contenders, she would likely be the safest bet for Canadian exporters. Given her tendency for triangulation, she would probably find a way to turn her TPP "No" into "Yes."

On the Republican side, front-runner Donald Trump has broken with seven decades of GOP tradition, becoming the most protectionist Republican contender since Herbert Hoover. While his attacks are directed at Mexico, China and Japan, Canada would inevitably be sideswiped by the trade wars a Trump presidency portends.

Story continues below advertisement

That is, if you believe he's serious about building a wall (a metaphorical one, in this case) around the entire U.S. economy. Mr. Trump has no qualms with the companies he personally chose to license his name and manufacture clothing and trinkets bearing his moniker in China, Bangladesh and Honduras. He has threatened to slap a 45-per-cent tariff on Chinese goods entering the United States – "if they don't behave," suggesting a negotiating tactic with a 45-point margin of error.

Mr. Trump's presidential candidacy is predicated on rallying white, working-class voters who see trade and immigration as the twin culprits behind America's decline, and their own. Whether Mr. Trump actually believes his own populist rhetoric is another matter altogether. No president can unilaterally rip up trade deals or slap tariffs on another country.

Yes, this presidential election cycle has seen even more trade-bashing than usual. Despite a cyclical uptick in U.S. factory jobs, stagnant real wages in manufacturing make it harder to argue in favour of free trade, whose benefits have never seemed so unequally distributed.

Still, Ms. Clinton walked away with this week's Ohio primary despite Mr. Sanders' constant hammering of her record on trade deals. Mr. Trump also tried to nail Ohio Governor John Kasich for voting for NAFTA and supporting China's entry into the World Trade Organization when he was a member of Congress. Mr. Kasich beat Mr. Trump by 11 percentage points.

Whoever wins, odds are that the anti-trade rhetoric will be history come January. At least until 2020.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Tickers mentioned in this story
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies