It didn’t take long after the first presidential debate began for the differences in Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump to become quite apparent. Trump is all for free trade, thinks the playing field should be equal in all trade agreements, and therefore has always been against The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
First Clinton was and then she was not. Trump has stated emphatically from day one that he will negate any such agreement if he is elected president. As with both Clinton’s, one must know their definitions before knowing what they really mean.
Their first heated exchange came when Trump went on the attack not only against President Obama’s push for the TPP and Clinton’s on again off again support of it, but of her husband’s trademark trade bill, NAFTA. TPP and Clinton’s on again off again support of it, but of her husband’s trademark trade bill, NAFTA.
The Republican nominee Trump was resolute in prosecuting his assertion that Clinton had indeed championed the bill before waffling. When she denied changing positions, he tied her stand to Washington’s elite by responding, “you’ve been doing that for 30 years.”
Clinton defended herself by highlighting the trade deals that she evaluated as a senator. She then promised that, if elected president, she would appoint a special prosecutor to enforce and oversee trade deals.
“But you haven’t done it in 30 years,” he replied. “You haven’t done it. You haven’t done it.” This underscored Trump’s assertion both in the primaries and on the general election campaign trail that Washington is stuck in a quagmire of studies and talk with little real action.
Obviously stung by Trump’s assertion that NAFTA is one of the worst things that ever happened to the manufacturing industry, Clinton responded by saying that Trump’s take on NAFTA was only his opinion. She then tried to say that she had never been in favor of TPP.
But Trump was having none of that and reminded Clinton that she had once called the trade agreement the “gold standard” deals. A transcript of the debate shows the exchange went as follows:
TRUMP: You called it the gold standard of trade deals. You said it’s the finest deal you’ve ever seen.
CLINTON: No.
TRUMP: And then you heard what I said about it, and all of a sudden you were against it.
CLINTON: Well, Donald, I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts. The facts are — I did say I hoped it would be a good deal, but when it was negotiated, which I was not responsible for, I concluded it wasn’t.”
Though Lester Holt did not bother to fact check Clinton’s denial, like he did Trump on a number of occasions, the Republican candidate knew what he was talking about.
In remarks made in Australia, Clinton said in 2012, “This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field. And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40 percent of the world’s total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment.”
Clinton tried to defuse Trump’s argument by saying she changed her mind after seeing the details of the agreement upon leaving her position as Secretary of State.
However, in her book Hard Choices, that came out several years later she wrote, “Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement. It’s safe to say the TPP won’t be perfect — no deal negotiated among a dozen countries ever will be — but its higher standards, if implemented and enforced, should benefit American businesses and workers… The TPP became the economic pillar of our strategy in Asia.”
Whether one is for or against TPP, the contrast between Trump and Clinton is clear. TPP is 5600 pages long and it is highly doubtful that the former Secretary has any idea what all it contains.
Like the President’s health care bill we are called on to trust the bureaucrats to tell our elected officials what they are voting for. Even Jake Tapper at CNN has noted 44 specific times when Clinton showed she wasn’t sure what the details of the agreement are and couldn’t make up her mind if she was for or against it.
What did this first salvo between the candidates reveal? One is decisive and knows what is good and what is bad for America. The other knows what is good or bad for her.
Regards,
Ethan Warrick
Editor
Wealth Authority
