re: #101 Barefoot Grin

I thought it was worked out among various nations as a way to a U.S.-centered counterweight to China. How would that work if we negotiate individually with each country? Do you suppose China might have been against it?

But I was frustrated with Hillary for flip-flopping on the deal as she was forced on the issue by Bernie; and I was frustrated with Obama for not selling it in more simple terms. Maybe because the narrative that NAFTA alone was responsible for the hollowing out of the midwestern industrial base made any hint of support for TPP poisonous? I don’t know. Also, I’ve never known how true the allegation that the TPP would allow multinationals to hold governments hostage in court cases. I just wish there had been better discussion of it.

It shouldn’t have been surprising that Hillary bailed on supporting the TPP during the campaign: as pointed out, it was political poison to the Left, while there was also widespread distrust/opposition from other sectors as well. And yes, IMO the “NAFTA Narrative” had a lot to do with the negatives: more “discussion” probably wouldn’t have been useful, since as Our Preznit has discovered, “trade issues is hard” and trying to sell the public on yet another complex multi-nation trade pact in the face of such wide-ranging negatives (right or wrong) wasn’t worth the political capital.

That said, though, I would imagine a President Hillary Clinton’s approach to revising/renegotiating the TPP would be vastly different from Trump’s: rather than just a blanket rejection, with vague promises of “deal-making”, I would imagine Hillary’s efforts would have been typical of her approach to most things: measured, negotiated, and effective - if near-terminally wonky. The Beef Lobby, say, might have had some of the same problems with the Japanese market,: but would probably get something of what they wanted in a low-key, under-the-table deal. Of course, with the Talking Yam in office, “low-key” anything is hardly feasible….