The polls are tightening a bit (gulp), but it still seems likely that Hillary Clinton will be the next U.S. President. If that happens, the choices for who in her administration runs trade policy will be very important. Roughly speaking, I would say the Democratic Party includes three views of trade policy: (1) The Obama view that, after some much needed reforms, we have the right balance with TPP; (2) a critical view that there are still more reforms needed, but trade deals are OK as a general matter; and (3) people who want to put an end to trade deals (and maybe to trade as well).
So which view will be represented in the Clinton administration? The battle for influence over that administration has already begun, according to Politico in an article that mostly focuses on financial regulation:
Warren’s coalition is developing a hit list of the types of people they’ll oppose — what one source called “hell no” appointments — in a Clinton administration. They’re vowing to fight nominees with ties to big banks, and warn against corporate executives assuming government roles in regulating the industries that made them rich. Warren has a mantra — “personnel is policy” — and behind the scenes, Warren, her allies and a left-leaning think tank affiliated with her have fanned out to try to influence the Clinton hiring process long before the election results come in.
The liberal wing’s early jockeying is already paying off. POLITICO reported this week that Rohit Chopra, who was hired by Warren at the CFPB, is joining Clinton’s transition team. And Heather Boushey, popular among progressives because of her focus on income inequality, was recently chosen as the team’s chief economist. Liberals applauded both hires as a sign Clinton is taking them seriously.
What is more, the Democratic Party platform embraced the senator’s position that only officials “who are not beholden to the industries they regulate” should get appointments.
Warren, who declined to comment through an aide, has said little publicly about the transition, in contrast to her more vocal supporters, but sources familiar with her thinking say she will sound the alarm if she feels the need to block a major appointment.
Her aides and Clinton’s people are in regular communication. And a think tank allied with Warren, along with progressive activists, is meeting with the transition team to ensure that a Democratic president-elect keeps Warren’s personnel preferences in mind when making appointments for financial policy jobs.
The showdown over personnel is stoking tension within the party, especially in the wake of the hard-fought primary between Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders. Some progressives fear that if Republicans hold the Senate, Clinton might cut deals with them and choose people with corporate ties. And some alumni of the Obama and Bill Clinton administrations are drawing fire for allegedly lacking progressive credentials.
...
One concrete, if indirect, way Warren is influencing the process is via the Roosevelt Institute, a New York-based tax-exempt organization that is hunting for hundreds of candidates to fill government roles in a Clinton administration.
The Roosevelt Institute is stocked with the senator’s allies who talk regularly with her current staff. The institute’s president, Felicia Wong, is in direct contact with members of the transition team and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Warren allies at the institute include liberal economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz and Damon Silvers, policy director and special counsel for the AFL-CIO labor federation, both of whom have worked with her in the past. Warren’s chief of staff, Dan Geldon, was a Roosevelt fellow in 2009.
...
The goal, Green said, is to have more people associated with Warren and Stiglitz represented in positions throughout the government, “and not just Robert Rubin clones.” Rubin, who once co-chaired Goldman Sachs and was a top executive at Citigroup, was a Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton, where he pushed for market deregulation and deficit reduction.
Rubin’s influence in the Obama administration is what Warren’s supporters are trying to prevent this time.
They point to Michael Froman, a former chief of staff for Rubin at Treasury, who was still getting paid by Citigroup while working as a senior official on Obama’s 2008 transition team. Froman went on to work in Obama’s White House, where he is U.S. trade representative.
Froman's office did not respond to requests for comment.
So what would more Warren/Stiglitz and less Froman mean for the TPP and trade policy in general? Reading this, this, this, this, and this may give you some vague sense, but to be honest, I'm really not sure where they would take trade policy.