A broad coalition of lawmakers, activist groups and nonprofit organizations in Washington opposes President Obama’s trade agenda. Just don’t expect to see them sharing a stage anytime soon.
On the Left, labor organizations and other liberal groups are staunchly opposed to trade bills they see as threats to jobs and the environment.
On the Right, a smaller, but no less determined, group of conservative immigration critics are also opposed. Many Tea Party-aligned groups are viewing Obama’s trade policy with deep suspicion as well.
While both sides see the upcoming trade bills as an extremely important fight in Congress, the groups are not publicly working together and any cross-partisan lobbying is being done well below the radar.
“We’re not coordinating with conservative groups. Given our coalition is mostly labor, environmental, family farm and consumer groups, we’ve been focusing on the Democratic side of the aisle,” said Arthur Stamoulis, spokesman for the Citizens Trade Coalition.
The story is the same on the Right. A headline on the website of the immigration-restrictionist group NumbersUSA declares it has joined “unions, environmentalists and more in broad coalition against threat of anti-worker trade bill.”
Despite that, they haven’t actually talked to or “had any contact at all” with any of those liberal groups, said spokeswoman Rosemary Jenks.
Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government, another conservative trade critic group, also said he hasn’t had any contact with anyone on the Left.
Like an awkward high school dance where the boys stay on the one side of the gym and girls on the other, the interaction between the two sides has been minimal.
That’s good news for Obama, since the opposition to his trade agenda is scattered, making it easier for him to cobble together the votes he will need in Congress.
The president’s agenda includes Trade Promotion Authority, also known as “Fast Track,” legislation that would limit Congress’s oversight of trade bills to a simple up or down vote without amendments.
Obama is also expected to send the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a major 12-nation trade deal, to Congress for approval later this year. Passage of Fast Track is widely seen as crucial to getting the Pacific deal approved.
A pro-trade lobbyist who has been talking with wavering Democratic lawmakers described the situation as “very fluid.” The lobbyist, who requested anonymity, called the coalition backing Obama as “pretty weak” due to organized labor’s pressure.
The Republican leadership, which has majorities in the House and Senate, supports both Fast Track and the Pacific deal. That places the president in the unusual position of depending on House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., for votes. Defeating it, therefore, likely hinges on how many GOP members buck their party leadership.
In late 2013, 21 Republicans signed a letter to Obama opposing Fast Track. Of them, 16 remain in Congress. More than that would be needed, though. Even if all 188 House Democrats opposed the trade deals, the opponents would need 30 Republicans.
Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., circulated a “dear colleague” letter April 20 to all other senators arguing that the Trans-Pacific Partnership could allow Obama to “negotiate … and agree to changes in our immigration laws.” U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman has repeatedly denied that any such language is in the deal.
Liberals have few ways of reaching out to those Republicans — and anything that they do try has to be kept out of the spotlight.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told the Washington Examiner the labor federation is reaching out to Republicans but declined to give any details. A Republican staffer for an undecided senator said it was being done through intermediaries.
The staffer, who requested anonymity, said home state labor groups and unionized businesses had lobbied his boss in small groups. Liberal Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., both fierce trade critics, have talked to the Republican as well.
Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., has told reporters that she was speaking with Republican colleagues one-on-one.
None of them have a very good track record at flipping Republican votes, though.
The problem for those opposed to the trade bills is that neither side is eager to been seen working with or validating the views of the other. Both sides are nevertheless counting on their counterparts deliver the votes needed to prevail in Congress.
“The level of political polarization has just made it ineffective and unproductive to coordinate across the political spectrum. Neither side does it on really an issue anymore, best I can see,” said a top-level activist for a major liberal group who requested anonymity.
Jenks said NumbersUSA’s concerns about the Trans-Pacific Partnership — that it could give the president unilateral power to rewrite immigration policy — negated any opportunity to work with the Left.
“The reason we are concerned about TPP is because of immigration — and immigration is all we do,” Jenks said.
Other conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation and the Club for Growth that ordinarily support free-market ideas like expanding trade have expressed skepticism, though they haven’t formally opposed the Pacific deal. They warn that amendments aimed at addressing Democratic concerns, like Trade Adjustment Assistance, would be a deal-killer.
“Conservatives have some understandable concerns not only with the current president but with the concessions Republicans are making on the front end,” Heritage Foundation spokesman Dan Holler said.
Warning that too many concessions are being made to Democrats isn’t exactly the stuff from which coalitions are made though.
“When I started working on issue advocacy 25 years ago … a prominent conservative could appeal to a Democratic [lawmaker] on the merits of an issue and a prominent progressive could appeal to a GOP member,” said the liberal activist. “Now it seems a lot more about whether one comes from the acceptable political tribe.”
