Is trade really so unpopular with both parties?

Convention platforms rarely endure. Written by a committee, incorporating uneasy compromises and reflecting a single candidate’s campaign priorities, these documents often have a short shelf life.

That’s perhaps the silver lining when one looks at the rambling discourse on international trade contained in the Republican and Democratic convention platforms released this month.

{mosads}Tapping into the widespread anti-trade rhetoric spewing from both presidential candidates, and many of their self-appointed spokespeople, the two platforms contain many concerning provisions with respect to trade policy.

The Republican platform is a particular case in point. Entitled “A Winning Trade Policy,” the platform’s section on international trade opens strongly by stating that “trade is crucial to all sectors of America’s economy.” It discusses numerous opportunities, proposals and concerns, but concludes with a statement suggesting that trade is not so crucial after all. It ends by declaring, “Significant trade agreements should not be rushed or undertaken in a Lame Duck Congress.”

One can only assume that the platform is talking about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement that the United States recently concluded with 11 top Pacific Rim trading partners. Together, this agreement represents 800 million consumers and 40 percent of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP). The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) recently found that this agreement would add $58 billion a year to the U.S. economy by 2032. And that number will grow. Congress has few other ways — with a single vote — to make such a lasting positive impact on our lives than to pass the TPP.

Yet somehow, the GOP platform suggests that such deals should not be considered during lame-duck. In fact, it fails to mention TPP at all. This is astounding. If trade is indeed “crucial,” Republicans should instead demand Congress come back into session and pass this agreement now — especially because it is so significant — and wouldn’t tolerate a delay until the lame-duck.

The Democratic platform section on trade is equally glum. Under the subtitle, “Promoting Trade that is Fair and Protects American Workers,” this platform opens with a declaration that global trade has “failed to live up to its promise.” After reciting a long litany of problems and concerns, the platform makes a grudging acknowledgement that “openness to the world economy is an important source of American leadership and dynamism.” But then it retreats into a second list of complaints.

At the end, the Democratic platform does mention the TPP by name but fails to indicate what should happen with it or how the TPP matches up to the previously stated concerns.

What’s missing from both is a sense of forward-looking optimism. In their 2012 platform, Democrats declared that “President Obama and the Democratic Party know that America has the best workers and businesses in the world.” They called for the conclusion of the TPP to open up new markets. In 2012, Republicans pledged to complete negotiations of the TPP and urged approval of the Trade Promotion Authority so new markets could also be created. Why? Back in 2012, it was because trade “means more American jobs, higher wages, and a better standard of living.”

So what changed in the last four years?

The popular narrative is that Americans are angry. Demonizing trade is a convenient way to harness and channel that energy to support populist goals. Trade, it seems, is an easy whipping boy.

It is conventional wisdom that trade is unpopular, and that seems especially the case in 2016. But while this may be true on the primary campaign trail, it is not true when you look across America and see the tens of millions of jobs created by trade — or the many, many ways trade positively impacts our economy. It also doesn’t reflect recent polls that show an overwhelming majority of Americans supporting trade agreements and increased trade with foreign countries.

It has become an article of faith that trade votes are tough in election years and that they rarely happen. But this isn’t true, either. Since 2000, there have been more than 17 trade-related votes in election years, including several to approve free-trade agreements and one to support China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). Several occurred during lame-duck Congresses, in fact.

There is no question that trade will suffer a black eye as a result of this election season. The platforms will play a small role in helping to deliver that blow. But they won’t be the last word. More anti-trade rhetoric is sure to follow.

Whether these fleeting words actually cause lasting damage to our economy remains to be seen.

Lamar is executive vice president of the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) and a frequent contributor on trade policy issues.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.