‘No loyalty or allegiance to America’: Warren targets multinationals in economic platform
Sen. Elizabeth Warren unveiled a new “Green Manufacturing Plan” on Tuesday as part of a broader “economic patriotism” platform that the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate will roll out in the weeks ahead.
That platform will focus on more aggressively protecting American workers on issues like trade, currency manipulation and the moving of jobs overseas by multinational corporations, Warren wrote in a Medium post. She argued that blaming forces like globalization and automation for stagnant wages and growing inequality were “excuses” that failed to identify those she sees as the real culprits: a greedy corporate America and a corrupt political system.
“Sure, these companies wave the flag — but they have no loyalty or allegiance to America,” Warren wrote. “These ‘American’ companies show only one real loyalty: to the short-term interests of their shareholders, a third of whom are foreign investors.”
Warren named names — calling out Levi’s, Dixon Ticonderoga (manufacturer of the distinctive No. 2 pencil) and General Electric for moving factories outside the United States.
“The truth is that Washington policies — not unstoppable market forces — are a key driver of the problems American workers face,” Warren wrote. “From our trade agreements to our tax code, we have encouraged companies to invest abroad, ship jobs overseas, and keep wages low.”
Warren announced the platform, along with her green manufacturing plan, ahead of appearances in Michigan and Indiana on Tuesday and Wednesday — states that have been particularly affected by de-industrialization.
The “economic patriotism” framework will continue to be filled in over the coming weeks, but Warren laid out a few concrete actions. Those steps include “more actively managing [U.S.] currency value to promote exports and domestic manufacturing,” tapping the Export-Import Bank to match what countries like China and Germany have done to finance exports, and consolidating myriad economic programs and agencies into a new Department of Economic Development, which will also envelop the Department of Commerce.
To manage currency value, a Warren aide said, there are a number of tools available, including potentially labeling other countries as “currency manipulators” — something the United States hasn’t done in two decades. President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to classify China in such a way, but his Treasury Department has not yet done so.
While Warren’s call for agency consolidation and a new department has similarities to an Obama administration proposal from 2012, much of her policy framework is the latest sign that she will chart a markedly different path forward on issues like trade and globalization than recent Democratic presidents. Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and pushed to allow China into the World Trade Organization. Barack Obama lobbied hard to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, as Warren campaigned ferociously against it, arguing at the time that it was merely “letting giant corporations rig the rules.”
“[G]lobalization isn’t some mysterious force whose effects are inevitable and beyond our control,” Warren wrote in her Medium post. “No — America chose to pursue a trade policy that prioritized the interests of capital over the interests of American workers.”
It is also another example of the quickly changing politics in both parties surrounding free trade and globalization. Warren’s aggressive words for corporate America and calls for a sort of economic nationalism echo some of Trump’s “America First” rhetoric on the campaign trail in 2016. Instead of targeting the makers of jeans, Trump took aim at Nabisco for moving a factory to Mexico and pledged to stop eating Oreos in protest.
Warren has argued that Trump’s populist rhetoric did not translate into action — that his administration appointed industry insiders rather than reformers, and that his signature tax-cut package increased profits of the companies he was lambasting for moving operations overseas. She also came out firmly against Trump’s renegotiated trade deal with Mexico and Canada, dubbing it “NAFTA 2.0” in a speech last November.
But Warren has also agreed with some broader Trump goals like taking on China’s trade practices, instead criticizing the way he’s gone about it, particularly his use of Twitter. Besides the string of tariffs, the administration has also made some moves that are out of line with traditional conservative views on free trade. Late last month, the Commerce Department proposed imposing additional duties on foreign goods when the other country’s currency is deemed “undervalued.”
It’s still unclear how Warren’s “economic patriotism” will play in the 2020 Democratic primary. Her rival Sen. Bernie Sanders found success in campaigning against the TPP during his 2016 presidential campaign. Ultimately, Hillary Clinton abandoned the deal as well, despite having helped negotiate it and calling it the “gold standard.”
But other Democratic candidates may point to the pain inflicted by Trump’s tariffs as a reason to not veer far from recent Democratic administrations. Former Vice President Joe Biden — who some progressives think is vulnerable because of his past support for NAFTA and TPP — has tried to strike a more balanced tone. He has defended his NAFTA vote and criticized the Trump administration’s tariffs, and his campaign has promised that a “progressive trade policy” will be coming.
Warren and Sanders both may continue to try to play up that contrast with Biden, especially given his front-runner status and large lead in national polls.
“It’s not a question of more government or less government,” Warren wrote. “It’s about who government works for.”
Zachary Warmbrodt contributed to this report.
