Democrats Turn Protectionists

1. What might explain the candidates’ and Democratic Party’s reversal position on free trade? Which voting constituencies would be most likely to reject free trade? Why?
In order to explain quite a controversial position of the Democratic Party and its candidates, it is necessary to pay attention when and why such a shift took place. Firstly, it is obvious that the attitude of the candidate and Democratic Party to free trade has changed in response to electoral attitude to free trade. Naturally the party and Al Gore needed a possible wider support of electorate and consequently they supported idea they supposed could provide more votes for Democratic Party’s candidate. In such a way the reversal position of the Democratic Party is basically explained by the factor of election and the influence of voting constituencies on the party’s and its candidates’ views on different problems, including free trade.
As for voting constituencies, which rejected free trade, were and actually remain those who suffered the most from the development of free trade. Basically these are those branches of industry which are the least competitive in both national and international markets. For instance, steel industry, deprived of financial barriers protecting national market from external expansion, would probably be ruined since steel companies operating in different countries of the world could supply the US economy with cheaper products. To prove it would be enough anti-damping processes against Russian steel companies. The same situation is observed in other branches of the US economy that are very weak compared to its international competitors, basically this is labor-intensive and ‘dirty’ production. Consequently they would not support neither free trade nor the party that stands for the development of free trade since the latter lead them to ruin.
2. What leverage do trade unions have in persuading Al Gore and other Democratic candidates to pay attention to their anti-free-trade position? Explain why these particular unions might be particularly powerful?
Traditionally trade unions are quit a significant power in the US since, being a democratic country, the US have a well developed system of protection of workers through trade unions. In fact the opinion of workers promulgated by trade unions is very important and Democratic candidates may be informed about their position in different ways from direct communications during meetings of trade union leaders and the candidates to public protests. In fact the problem is that nowadays the position of workers is far from perfect, moreover, layer of society may be considered as the most unstable and consequently it can be easily provoked to radical means of achievement of their goals through public protests or in the worse cases riots, etc. As a result the role of the auto workers, the steelworkers, the machinists is very important and historically they are very influential because initially these industries provided a rapid progress of American economy and were and to a certain extent remains its basis.
3. What tradeoffs do Al Gore and other Democrats face in accommodating labor? Explain.
In the situation when the process of globalisation gets to be more and more powerful, the only way for the Democratic party to accommodate labor may be the attempt to protect the weakest points of American industry from international expansion through some additional financial barriers and state support. It means that the state could support the industries that particularly needed to be protected and develop free trade in areas where American companies are particularly strong. In such a way the workers turn to be artificially supported by state while free trade profitable for the US can progress.
4. How can US manufacturers compete with foreign producers? Are they doomed, as suggested by the president of the United Steelworkers of America? Explain.
Obviously free trade is a very serious challenge for US manufacturers because some of them, as it has been pointed out above, are not very competitive in the international market and their position would be significantly deteriorated if the national market was open for international expansion. In such a situation the president of the United Steelworkers of America is probably right concerning manufacturers that are based on labor-intensive production and which are harmful for environment, like steel industry. In fact such manufacturing tend to move from developed countries into developing ones, while manufacturing focused on new scientific and technological achievements progress rapidly in developed countries and will gradually substitute traditional industries in developed countries, including the US.
5. Are the Unions and their members right to be concerned about the effects of free trade policies? What are these effects that they are concerned about? Who would be helped and who would be hurt if the unions get their ways on trade? Explain.
In all probability the most appropriate answer for this question is very controversial but nonetheless it should be said that the Unions and their members are primarily concerned about their own interests and it is their natural reaction to protect themselves from complete ruin because they cannot survive in the market where their products are sold along with the products from other countries where labor force is much cheaper and production expanses are lower that eventually effects the price of the final product. In such a situation the consumers would definitely prefer cheaper products, which are about the same quality American manufacturers can supply. On the other hand, objectively they could not survive independently in the market. As a result state, supporting the unions and manufacturers, helps them survive and at the same time affects American economy at large because such a support needs financial aid, which cannot provide any revenues, and it also affects other manufacturers who pays higher price for local products and make their products more expansive and less competitive. Thus, there is a dilemma: either limit free trade and support manufacturers that retard the development of the national economy at large, or develop free trade and ruin them that will increase social tension within the country.

Bibliography:
1. Gomory, R.E. (2002). Globalization: Causes and Effects. New York: Touchstone.
2. Weiler, J. (2002). The EU, the WTO, and NAFTA: Towards a Common Law of International Trade. New York: Guilford.