Politico reports on the Obama administration's possible choices for U.S. Trade Rep. The article distinguishes between a "technocrat" choice and a "political" choice, indicating that the business community prefers the latter. The technocrat options mentioned are Dan Tarullo of Georgetown Law Center and Lael Brainard of Brookings. The political options mentioned are Bill Richardson, who seems set to become Commerce Secretary, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and former Rep. Jim Davis (D-Fla.).
The reason business folks support a political pick is explained as follows:
A Tarullo pick, trade advocates fear, would signal a less-than-ambitious trade policy. Tarullo served in a variety of senior economic positions in the Clinton years, but he lacks the gravitas and strong political connections on Capitol Hill that trade lobbyists say are necessary to push forward significant trade deals.
And along the same lines:
“The question is whether [Obama] goes for a political person, which would mean a more active director of trade policy, or he goes for a technocrat,” which would signal few new initiatives but rather a quiet hand that would “keep the boat going,” said Gary Hufbauer, an economist with the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Is this right? Is the most important qualification the ability to sell these trade deals to Congress? I don't have much experience in trade politics, so I'm tempted to accept the conventional wisdom here. At the same time, though, there is a part of me (the naive part?) that thinks what we really need is someone with a vision of how trade rules could be reshaped in a way that increases support for free trade and trade agreements.
