Newspaper article The Christian Science Monitor

Perot's Disservice to NAFTA's Opponents

Newspaper article The Christian Science Monitor

Perot's Disservice to NAFTA's Opponents

Article excerpt

ALTHOUGH there are legitimate reasons to challenge the North American Free Trade Agreement, Ross Perot's "giant sucking sound" Mexico-bashing infomerical is not one of them. While the Texas billionaire could have been a formidable ally for fellow critics of NAFTA, he actually has hurt our cause by turning to an anti-free trade mythology based more on paranoia than solid analysis.

By engaging the Mexican/US pro-NAFTA lobby in a multi-million dollar propaganda duel, Perot and his anti-NAFTA movement, United We Stand America, may have raised the visibility of the issue, but they have failed to advance the public's understanding of what's really at stake.

Even after dismissing all of the proto-sincere warblings by a battalion of highly paid economists, politicized lawyers, and PR firms - all insisting that NAFTA will usher in an economic New Jerusalem - free-trade opponents still must realize that Perot's case isn't "just that simple, folks." For example, the worst-case scenario for the displacement of United States jobs by NAFTA (about 490,000 workers) would account for less than 6 percent of the total of all projected US job losses over the next five years.

However, it is unlikely that job displacement of that magnitude will occur. The US International Trade Commission states that virtually every reputable study has concluded that NAFTA actually should yield an increase in US jobs and wages.

Although this Bush-era finding could represent a tendentious manipulation of facts by White House apparatchiks, it also just could be true, or partially true. Perot's group, however, finds it unnecessary to release countering analysis or come forth with any reports by economists of standing to challenge these claims. In fact, for Perot, there is no case for NAFTA, because l'etat c'est moi.

Perot's lobby would be less arresting if he exerted only a marginal influence on US policymakers. When he holds closed meetings with Congress concerning these major issues, what criteria are we using to establish his qualifications?

A heap of sawbucks and a puckish wit alone should not give one unique access to elected officials and extensive media coverage. Perot's belief that he can purchase anything, including Washington's attention, sets a precedent we may not want to follow. What may turn out to be even more dangerous to the nation is that his shrill lashes against NAFTA only beggars the debate by arming his enemies with better weapons to destroy his palsied arguments. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.