Research Fellow  John C. Fortier

It is no coincidence that calls for a reworked North American Free Trade Agreement and for higher taxes on corporations that send jobs overseas come in the days leading up to the Ohio primary. While some of the recent protectionist paeans are merely political rhetoric aimed at Buckeye State voters, there is also a larger underlying change to our political system that signals a significant pause ahead in the era of free trade.

Public opinion has always been mixed on trade. Many surveys still show pluralities supporting NAFTA, but the greater intensity is on the side of its opponents. Overall, a large majority of the American public has been supportive of the concept of free trade, but that support has diminished in recent years. In 2002, the Pew Global Attitudes survey showed 78 percent of Americans supportive of growing trade and business ties between the United States and other countries. In 2007, that number dropped to 58 percent. Even more striking, the strongest voices against trade have gotten louder. In 2002, only 4 percent thought that growing trade was "very bad"; in 2007, 15 percent held that view. America also now ranks significantly below other Western democracies in its support for trade. Compared with the 58 percent support in America, Canada registered 82 percent, Germany, 85 percent, and France and Britain, 78 percent.

The font of protectionism is Congress, especially the House, and the 2006 elections brought in a new bloc of trade-skeptic Democrats who beat free trade Republicans. Take, for example, the recent vote on the Peru Free Trade Agreement: More than 45 percent of Democrats voted for it, but only 11 out of 41 freshman Democrats did.

We can expect more of the same in 2008. Robin Hayes of North Carolina is one of the most vulnerable Republican incumbents and his switched vote in favor of CAFTA will again be an issue for him this November. NAFTA supporters David Hobson and Deborah Pryce of Ohio, Jim Ramstad of Minnesota and Jim Saxton of New Jersey are leaving office, and their replacements in these competitive open seats could be much less favorable to trade.

Presidents have generally been the driving force behind free trade. Not only do they negotiate agreements with our trading partners, but their perspective is national, not regional. Of course, presidential candidates are not beyond advocating protectionist measures for political gain. President Bush is a strongly pro-trade president, but he followed through on his campaign promise for steel tariffs, which were rescinded only after a clash with the World Trade Organization. The overall tenor of the Bush presidency, however, was in the direction of lowering tariffs.

Historically, Democratic presidents have favored trade more than their congressional counterparts have, which makes recent Clinton and Obama criticisms of NAFTA and free trade stand out. Clinton, of course, has the political problem that her husband shepherded NAFTA through Congress. She has a strong foot in the free trade camp, but she is now trying to stress her trade doubts to the middle-and lower-class union voters who are her supporters.

Obama's more populist rhetoric seems even more discordant. Polls show that support for free trade is highest among the young, the best-educated and the professional classes. It is also higher among independents than Democrats. These are Obama voters. The stereotypical Obama voter might sip "fair trade" coffee, but he's not overly worried about being laid off due to foreign competition.

John McCain is not as conflicted as Obama and Clinton; he has a long record of support for free trade. But whether it is Obama, Clinton or McCain in the White House, the dynamic between the president and Congress will make the prospects of substantial new trade agreements dim.

NAFTA passed under a unique set of circumstances. It was negotiated by George H. W. Bush, which allowed Bill Clinton to support the treaty only if important Democratic priorities were addressed through side agreements on labor and environmental standards. With this political cover, he was able to win over a substantial number of House Democrats (although not a majority of the caucus). Congressional Republicans generally supported NAFTA, but they did not want to pass it without some buy-in from Democrats. With Clinton delivering a big bloc of Democrats, a substantial majority of Republicans voted for the deal.

Fast-forward to the 111th Congress. A President McCain would get very few Democratic votes for a free trade agreement. A President Obama or a President Clinton would have a much harder time than Bill Clinton getting Democratic support for a deal, and the Republican side would be less likely to provide the margin of victory.

America is still a pro-free-trade country, but changes in public opinion, congressional elections and structural factors will likely put free trade instincts on hold for the foreseeable future.

John C. Fortier is a research fellow at AEI.