I've previously detailed the flawed economic underpinnings of the respective anti-free market platforms advocated by Sens. Obama and Clinton, particularly with regard to free trade.  The Ohio primary became a contest of who could demagogue NAFTA with more virulence, without regard to the fact that free trade is good for the economy, for workers, for businesses, and for consumers.  Rather, economic problems throughout the Rust Belt are more to blame on anti-business, pro-union tax and regulatory policy coupled with technological innovation — fewer workers are required to produce more goods and services.

Further inspection yields some interesting facts.  Dr. Don Boudreaux, an economics professor at George Mason University, investigated the unemployment rate in Ohio, comparing pre-NAFTA employment data to that experienced post-NAFTA.  The result is as would be expected:  the unemployment rate is lower following the enactment of NAFTA.  Ohio's unemployment rate in the month before NAFTA took effect on January 1, 1994 was 6.5%.  It fell to a low of 3.9% in February 2001, increasing to its current level of 5.8%; it has not reached 6.5%, its immediate pre-NAFTA level, again.  Enactment of NAFTA simply has not caused an increase in the unemployment rate in Ohio.

Even more investigation was performed by the Wall Street Journal's Daniel Griswold, who is Director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a pro-free market think tank:  "Canada and Mexico are the top two markets for exports from Ohio, accounting for more than half of the state's exports in 2006. According to the Ohio Department of Development, 283,500 workers in the state earn their living in the export sector, with machinery, car parts, aircraft engines and optical/medical equipment among the leading exports. A trade showdown would put those good-paying jobs at risk."  Pulling out of NAFTA would raise imports on American goods and services in the top two export markets for Ohio.  Are Clinton and Obama ignorant of these facts, or are they simply saying what they think will win votes?  Neither options speaks well of their respective candidacy.

Nationally, the news about NAFTA is even better.  As Griswold continues:  "Since NAFTA took effect on Jan. 1, 1994, the U.S. economy has added a net 26 million new jobs. The average real hourly compensation (wages and benefits) of workers has climbed 23%. Real median household net worth has increased by a third. ... Since NAFTA, U.S. manufacturing investment in Mexico has averaged a modest $2 billion a year — a tiny fraction of the $150 billion or more those same companies invest annually in domestic manufacturing capacity. American factories actually added a net half-million new manufacturing jobs in the five years after NAFTA."

Free trade has many benefits.  Lower government restrictions and taxation on importation of goods and services provides more choices and lower prices for individuals and families.  Competition drives American businesses to improve, or redeploy capital and resources to other areas that more effectively emphasize American advantage.  Free trade also lowers foreign barriers to US exports, as evidenced by the success of NAFTA in increasing American exports to Canada and Mexico.

Unfortunately, the Democrats have no monopoly on flawed economic thinking that favors more government restriction in spite of the facts — right wing protectionists such as Pat Buchanan and Phyllis Schlafly make government intrusion into the marketplace a centerpiece of their economic populism.  Conversely, Republicans have no monopoly on free trade advocacy:  NAFTA passage was a collaboration of Republicans in Congress and Democratic President Bill Clinton, acting in the JFK example.  Apparently, Hillary didn't learn from the economic successes of her husband's time in office.

The 2008 election may well become a referendum on free trade.  Hopefully, facts will trump demagoguery on trade, and the US will continue to pursue less government interference in the economy and more prosperity.