Iowa never feels quite so lonely as it does the day after we hold our famous (or infamous) caucuses. For a few weeks once every four years, it seems that the eyes of the entire nation are focused on the Hawkeye State. Political activists bask in the attention as they debate which presidential candidates to support. On our hallowed caucus nights, ambitious dreams come to an end for some and bright futures open up for others.
Then it’s over. The candidates wave goodbye, the television cameras click off, and the reporters leave for New Hampshire. We farmers finally get back to talking about really important things - like when the snow’s going to melt, how high is the soybean price going and who’s going to win the Superbowl.
Everything returns to normal. It’s almost as if the whole ruckus never took place.
But this year may have a more lasting legacy. I’ve never seen so many candidates say so many derisive things about free trade. Keep in mind that there will always be a large constituency for protectionism as well as politicians willing to pander. In the past, however, candidates opposed to free trade have felt reluctant to state their views plainly. They’ve never treated the term “free trade” with abject hostility.
Until now. To hear some of the talk here in Iowa, it would seem that the North American Free Trade Agreement, which just celebrated its tenth anniversary, is the worst thing that’s happened to the United States since the British crown forced the Stamp Act down the throats of uppity colonists.
Let me make something plain. I’m not trying to knock the candidates who just went buzzing through my state because they’re Democrats: We would not have NAFTA but for the leadership of President Bill Clinton. This important trade pact was concluded on his watch and it wouldn’t have happened without him and the great effort he expended.
I remember Vice President Al Gore serving as Clinton’s point man when he went on Larry King’s CNN show to debate Ross Perot over the merits of NAFTA. Gore made a compelling case that NAFTA would increase trade between the United States, Canada, and Mexico--and in the process create thousands of good jobs.
Now is certainly an appropriate time to assess NAFTA’s impact. A decade is long enough to make some judgments about its success or failure. So let’s ignore the political hot air for a moment and take a look at the cold, hard facts.
First of all, NAFTA’s most dramatic effect has been to boost trade between the United States and Mexico from $81 billion in 1993 to $232 billion last year. The deal has been especially good for farmers because agricultural exports to both Mexico and Canada have doubled since NAFTA’s passage. They’re now valued at about $16 billion per year and rising.
Between NAFTA taking effect and the end of the 20th century, the value of U.S. farm products sold worldwide climbed by 19 percent. The value of agricultural exports to Canada and Mexico went up by 62 percent. The combined markets of these two countries are bigger for us than the entire European Union.
Ten years ago, U.S. goods faced a Mexican tariff of about 10 percent. Today, that tax has been cut to about 2 percent. More than two-thirds of our exports enter Mexico duty-free. The benefits are spread throughout all sectors of our farming economy: Mexicans have been energetic buyers of wheat, rice, soybean oil, planting seeds, beef, poultry, processed fruits and vegetables, fresh fruits and vegetables, juices, tree nuts, pet foods, feed, and fodder. Despite an ongoing controversy over corn sweeteners, Mexico is purchasing eighteen times more corn from the United States today than it was in 1993.
This is all for the good. But let’s keep things in perspective, too: NAFTA’s overall effect on America’s $10 trillion economy has been small. For folks who sell to Mexico, though, it’s been a boon--and we’re delighted the deal was made.
While I’m mostly concerned that NAFTA benefit Americans, it’s also worth noting the positive effect it’s had on Mexico, which is much wealthier today than it would be otherwise. I won’t dwell on this point except to observe that what’s good for our neighbor is good for us.
In addition to Republicans like President Bush’s father, we can thank Democrats for making much of NAFTA possible: From Bill Clinton in the White House to John Kerry in the Senate to Howard Dean in the Vermont governor’s mansion.
Some politicians may be running away from this legacy today, but I’d like to offer them some unsolicited advice: Embrace it, tell the truth, and try to win elections without resorting to bogeymen. After all, free trade is a bipartisan imperative.
Oh, and one more thing: Let’s pass CAFTA next--and throw a big anniversary party in ten years.
Recieve the latest news and commentary from Truth About Trade & Technology in your inbox every Friday with our newsletter subscription service.
Subscribing is easy and free, simply fill out th form below and you subscription will begin immediately. We protect your privacy, your e-mail address will never be sold or redistributed and you can unsubscribe at any time.
News 
Iowa never feels quite so lonely as it does the day after we hold our famous (or infamous) caucuses. For a few weeks once every four years, it seems that the eyes of the entire nation are focused on the Hawkeye State. Political activists bask in the attention as they debate which presidential candidates to support. On our hallowed caucus nights, ambitious dreams come to an end for some and bright futures open up for others.
