The New York Times has endorsed Hillary Clinton: editorial. As my ballot here in Massachusetts consists primarily of candidates running unopposed this is not of any personal relevance. One item caught my eye, however:
She helped promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an important trade counterweight to China and a key component of the Obama administration’s pivot to Asia. Her election-year reversal on that pact has confused some of her supporters, but her underlying commitment to bolstering trade along with workers’ rights is not in doubt.
How is it possible for a politician to “bolster trade” and simultaneously support “workers’ rights”? Does “workers’ rights” refer to the rights of workers in Vietnam to have full access to the U.S. market?
What do readers think? Is there a way to promote free trade and also shield Americans whom employers don’t value (see unemployed = 21st century draft horse?) from the fact that the world is now full of well-educated, hard-working, and sought-after employees? (or the fact that a company may be better off running leaner rather than bringing in less-qualified American workers) If the answer is “give cash handouts to Americans” I don’t think that qualifies as relating to “workers’ rights” because handouts are usually available to those who don’t work (see Book Review: The Redistribution Recession).