After Kamala Harris announced Tim Walz as her running mate yesterday, there has been a lot of discussion of Walz's policy views. Vice-Presidents don't typically take the lead on trade policy, but nonetheless I thought it was worth mentioning something Walz said in a speech back in 2007 on the interaction of foreign policy and trade policy (starts at 12:50):
So this focus on the global war on terror has distracted and is teaching the next generation of leaders that that is all that matters, that is how foreign policy is carried out. And I say this because I think there's some glaring examples where we're missing opportunities, and I'd like to share a couple of those. One thing is, this administration has been very aggressive, very outgoing, and I think there's a positive side to this, and it's a realization that the world is very globalized. And they've gone out with a lot of trade agreements, reaching out. Well, I think there's one that shows something very interesting that's a lack of this. And this should be a very close ally of ours and a very close trading partner, but unfortunately, they're not, and that is New Zealand. New Zealand has failed to be included in some of these trade agreements. Whether it's Australia, we're getting ready for the Caribbean Basin, we just signed one on April 1 that'll come to Congress on South Korea. But New Zealand is missing from this. And I think when I look at this, there is really only one factor. There's a possibility, there's great markets there, there's great ability to trade, there's a common heritage. Everything seems to say New Zealand should be a much broader trading partner than they are. But many of you in this room know probably what the reason for that is. New Zealand has a very strong stance, and if you can remember back in the 90s, when they made the decision, they have refused to allow our nuclear submarines and our warships to dock there. So New Zealand doesn't play a role in this so called strategy theory or this security theory of our foreign policy. So New Zealand was kind of left out, and I think it's an interesting omission.
The role of foreign policy in setting trade policy priorities doesn't always get the attention it deserves, and I appreciate Walz pointing out the link between the Bush administration's foreign and trade policy tradeoffs. Walz seemed to doubt the wisdom of excluding New Zealand from the Bush administration's FTA efforts, and I think he was right to be skeptical.
On more general trade policy issues, Walz said this in 2015 after voting against Congressional authorization of Trade Promotion Authority:
I’m for trade as long as it’s fair trade, but we can’t ensure that is the case if we fast-track this agreement and keep Congress—and constituents—in the dark. Trade can be a powerful tool for good, but as we’ve seen in the past with agreements like NAFTA, sometimes these agreements work against the American worker. We need a trade deal that’s fair, that restricts currency manipulation, promotes ‘Made in America’ manufacturing, and opens foreign markets for our agricultural products. Unfortunately, TPA—and by extension TAA—by its very nature, makes it so Congress cannot ensure that is the case, which is why I voted against these measures today.
This particular variety of trade skepticism is fairly typical among Congressional Democrats. However, the position of Democrats in the Executive branch tends to be different from those in Congress, because they represent all Americans rather than just their constituents, and also international relations plays a bigger role for them. As a result, someone's views as a member of Congress may not carry over directly to their views as President or Vice-President. It may be unlikely that Walz as VP would play much of a role in trade policy, but nonetheless it will be interesting to see if there is any shift in his views if the Harris/Walz ticket is elected.
