In terms of economic consequences, the new trade agreement with Peru is trivial. In political terms, however, it delivers an ominous message. When faced with a choice between money and their own rank-and-file, the Democratic leaders in the House will go with the money, even if it requires them to pass legislation with Republican votes. Even if a majority of their own caucus is opposed. Even if it means handing the shrinking president, George W. Bush, a rare legislative victory.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi pulled it off today at considerable cost to her own reputation. How different are the new Dems in Congress? Not very, it seems. That is a reasonable interpretation of events and the Speaker is now stuck with the burden of disproving it.

Pelosi's lieutenants "whipped" the party caucus energetically and did better than expected--109 Dems voting for the Peru trade bill, 116 Dems against.

But Pelosi still winds up looking like the great triangulator, Bill Clinton, who managed to pass important trade measures like NAFTA only by relying on Republican votes over his own party. Pelosi will come to regret the comparison, I suspect, because it suggests she is unreliable as a party leader, at least if you thought Democrats were going to change things. On the Peru vote, she played big-money contributors and the opposition party against her own troops. Clinton used to do this brilliantly with lots of soulful rhetoric extolling his own courage. Pelosi and team are not so adept.

Why would she depart from her usual form? After all, Pelosi normally won't bring an issue to the House floor unless assured of overwhelming consensus among her members.

Her explanation: "I don't want this party to be viewed as an anti-trade party." That is the same simple-minded non sequitur the multinational establishment always invoke to scold Democrats. None of the Democratic dissenters are arguing for "no trade." They are trying to change the rules of trade so US workers are not the first victims of new agreements. Pelosi argued that the Peru agreement includes an important reform--stronger language in support of labor and environmental standards--and it does. But is there perhaps another reason why she pushed so hard against her own caucus?

Steven R.Weisman of the New York Times gently suggested one. "Democrats from the prosperous areas of the East and West Coast have become especially responsive, many Democrats say, to the desire of Wall Street and the high technology, health, pharmaceutical and entertainment industries to expand their sales overseas," Weisman wrote. "These industries have also become major Democratic contributors."

She did it for the money. That is a more plausible explanation than insider arguments over the fine print in an inconsequential new trade bill. The big-money sectors are anxious to squelch the new critics of globalization in Democratic ranks before they can gain momentum in Congress. Looking toward financing the 2008 elections, Pelosi chose to stand with the money guys and dismiss the political backlash against globalization building across the country. She is probably betting people aren't paying attention to such trivial matters.

But I wouldn't count on that. She is liable to lose her bet as economic conditions worsen for folks in coming months. People are likely to get more anxious and angry than they already are. One thing Democrats should not try to tell voters in '08 is they are the party of change. Might yield more yawns and snickers than votes.

Comments (11)

1. "Pelosi's lieutenants "whipped" the party caucus energetically and did better than expected--109 Dems voting for the Peru trade bill, 116 Dems against."

   Mr Greider, maybe you better talk with John Nichols and see how the same Dems who voted for MORE trade agreements....are going to impeach the guy that wanted that same agreement?

   Posted by Mask at 11/08/2007 @ 5:02pm

2. Way to go Nancy! panama and Colombia to go.....

   Posted by davebarlett at 11/08/2007 @ 7:17pm

3. You're back! Keep posting Bill.

   Posted by robert beal at 11/08/2007 @ 9:55pm

4. I have no interest in Trade Agreements of any kind. I want to see tariffs behind which we can regrow our industrial base and create "American" jobs. This is how development works! These people are useless! We need new political parties!

   Posted by P. J. Casey at 11/09/2007 @ 11:02am

5. Greider is spot on ... but let's put a name to it . 'Neoliberal economics' and the War Party that supports it .

   These "free trade deals" are part and parcel of the corporatocracy. They guarantee corporate profits at the expense of the middle and poor classes and sovereignty of BOTH ourselves and the subject country.

   Read both 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' and 'Disaster Capitalism' to get the full dimensions of our real 'trade policy' .

   Posted by mmckinl at 11/09/2007 @ 4:58pm

6. Has anyone figured out that the only thing that Peru has and the US might want is coca leaves and Andean folk music? Basically it's a one way deal--we will sell them stuff and they will buy it. Anyone who don't like the deal they can lodge a complaint with the nearest US military base in Peru.

   Posted by hkaplan at 11/09/2007 @ 5:51pm

7. dump protected US agriculture on Peru which forces the rural peruvian farmers off their land and into urban slums to work for sub-subsistence wages in some relocated american factory, or do whatever else it takes to survive, and buy up the forclosed land at cut rates, build vacation ranches in the picturesque andes, hire back some of the former land owners as security or maintenance workers and masseuses, then brag about how we're bringing a real economy and jobs to these poor bastards who used to have none, but incidentally used to be able to feed their family but now they can't...it works in Haiti, why not puru!!

   Posted by rzs_1 at 11/09/2007 @ 11:32pm

8. of course it's about the money, it's never not been about the money. nice to hear it told as bluntly. If enough people realize that there's not a bit of difference between rebuplicans and democrats when it comes to drawing up the rules for corporate power, the only rules that reallly matter, maybe a third party could have a shot in this sytem.

   Posted by rzs_1 at 11/09/2007 @ 11:54pm

9. I am happy to read so many postings by people who know better than to equate NAFTA and its corporatist progeny with "free trade." NAFTA is a set of rules, basically a corporate wish list. There is nothing particularly "free" about it.

   Now, we need to talk to the ignorant fools who believe that immigrants from south of the border come here on a nefarious mission to "undermine" our wage levels. Nope, these are NAFTA's refugees; the "underminers" are the bosses who exploit them. Stop blaming the victims!

   We also need to talk to workers north and south of every border about what an alternative to NAFTA would look like: a treaty that protects not the privileges of the wealthy, but the SOURCES of wealth, which have always been and will always be healthy, respectably paid workers and sustainably managed, renewable natural resources, here and everywhere else.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 11/10/2007 @ 05:44am

10. Ms Pelosi has been terribly dissapointing to me, I wld not be surprised if the republicans gained back the congress because of her inept leadership. The only thing she has gotten done is an increase in the minimum wage! Her selection as leader has been a setback for the democratic party. She is timid when it is time to be strong and she is business as usual when its time for real change.

    Posted by rbprtman at 11/10/2007 @ 09:14am

11. RBPRTMAN,

    You are incorrect in that assessment. The Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin. Any act, law, piece of legislation, referendum or Presidential Executive order designed to destroy America and the American people then Democrats and Republicns ARE ALL FOR IT..................

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/12/2007 @ 03:13am