TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
03.03.2008
Canada Strikes Back

If you haven't been following this Austan Goolsbee/Canadian consulate mini-flap, this piece is probably as good a place as any to get up to speed. I was actually alerted to the piece--which focuses on a memo written by a Canadian consular official after Goolsbee's meeting there--by the Clinton campaign. But while it's clearly an annoyance for the Obama campaign, it doesn't strike me as hugely damning.

Anyway, here's the key passage, based on the memo:

Goolsbee disputed a section that read: "Noting anxiety among many U.S. domestic audiences about the U.S. economic outlook, Goolsbee candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign. He cautioned that this messaging should not be taken out of context and should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans."

"This thing about 'it's more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans,' that's this guy's language," Goolsbee said of DeMora. "He's not quoting me.

"I certainly did not use that phrase in any way," Goolsbee said. ...

The memo obtained by the AP was widely distributed within the Canadian government. It is more than 1,300 words and covers many topics that DeMora said were discussed in the Feb. 8 "introductory meeting" between himself, Goolsbee and the consul general in Chicago, Georges Rioux.

Goolsbee "was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy," the memo's introduction said. "On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more 'core' principles of the agreement."

Goolsbee said that [last] sentence is true and consistent with Obama's position. But he said other portions of the memo were inaccurate.

I suspect Goolsbee was doing what campaign officials often do, which is try to tailor his message to the group he was addressing without undercutting any core principles or stated positions. It wouldn't shock me if the Canadians heard a bit more of what they wanted to hear than what Goolsbee actually said (that's often the point, after all). And Goolsbee, who's trained as an economist, not a campaign operative, may have been a little casual in parsing his terms. But I really doubt he went so far as to say Obama was just pandering to Ohio voters on NAFTA, or that his boss didn't believe what he'd been saying on the campaign trail. That'd be a pretty dumb thing to say even if he believed it, and Goolsbee is not a dumb man.

Moreover, what's shocking here isn't that this kind of conversation took place. I'm sure aides to Obama and Hillary have had dozens, if not hundreds, like it since the campaign started. What's shocking is that a foreign government would leak it to the press. That seems like a pretty egregious breach of protocol--more like a dirty trick by an operative in a conservative government than anything else. I can't imagine it'll bode well for U.S.-Canadian relations if Obama makes it to the White House ...

Update: See my latest (revisionist) post on this.

--Noam Scheiber

Posted: Monday, March 03, 2008 8:07 AM with 7 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

The Stump said:

At the risk of getting too Mark Halperin -esque on you, keep an eye out today for official word on how

March 3, 2008 9:42 AM

JPKatz said:

“But I really doubt he went so far as to say Obama was just pandering to Ohio voters on NAFTA, or that his boss didn't believe what he'd been saying on the campaign trail. That'd be a pretty dumb thing to say even if he believed it, and Goolsbee is not a dumb man.”

What is truly dumb is to think that the US could dictate new terms for NAFTA and that Canada and Mexico would go along with this in a docile manner. The US has a great deal to lose if the treaty is reopened (Canada is the largest supplier of energy to the U.S., and the treaty protects both price and supply) and runs the risk of dissolving a trading block which produces goods and services worth $15-trillion a year.

Ohio has suffered heavy job losses in the past five years, and this make voters receptive to NAFTA-bashing. But this is based on ignorance: Since 1994, when NAFTA was signed, Ohio’s jobless rate has fallen, factory output has gone up, and exports have soared (even to Mexico). Ohio's manufacturing output is 6 per cent higher than it was in 1992. Exports have grown by nearly 10 per cent every year since. In fact, in 2006, Ohio had a $3.3-billion merchandise trade surplus with Canada on $33.3-billion in two-way trade.

Since 1994, the U.S. economy has generated 25 million new jobs. The average U.S. jobless rate has been 5.1 per cent in the NAFTA era, compared with 7.1 per cent in the 13 years before the deal.

I am not sure that many US voters really grasp the significance of all of this, and it is to the discredit of Clinton and Obama that they are pandering to this ignorance. America's lost jobs are going to China and India, not Mexico or Canada. Interestingly, Al Gore, during his debate with Ross Perot in 1996, demolished similar criticisms about NAFTA. Maybe the Democrats need to be reminded of another inconvenient truth.

March 3, 2008 11:36 AM

teplukhin2you said:

Rats. Saw the headline and thought I'd see news of CanWest fixing this web re-design. Oh well

March 3, 2008 12:01 PM

teplukhin2you said:

The problem with NAFTA isn't the trade-related loss of jobs in the US, it's job losses IN MEXICO, particularly in the agricultural sector. Mexico's #1 benefit wasn't increased exports for US manufacturers; it was reform and greater stability in Mexico and reduced illegal immigration by desperate Mexican workers into the US. There's been some reform, and Mexico has not (yet) had the revolution that the CIA and many analysts have long feared is likely, but NAFTA has failed, miserably, at providing opportunities for poor Mexicans and thus stemming illegal immigration pressures.

Utterly bizarre that no one in our political and journalistic establishment focuses on this, the core problem of NAFTA. Go figure

March 3, 2008 12:06 PM

The Elephant said:

The Clinton campaign is calling it NAFTA-gate, which is certainly the right approach for them but probably

March 3, 2008 12:12 PM

teplukhin2you said:

correction to above: 2nd sentence sh read, "NAFTA's #1 benefit wasn't supposed to be ..."

March 3, 2008 12:20 PM

The Stump said:

Okay, scratch what I said about Goolsbee and Canada. I still don't think it's substantively a

March 3, 2008 12:43 PM