Last Wednesday, we all heard Hillary Clinton announce her opposition to -- or at least her deep skepticism about -- the TPP. That triggered many accusations of flip-flopping, as she had previously supported it. Now this Tuesday, CNN will be hosting the first Democratic debate, where she will no doubt be asked about her change of views.
You might ask, what was she thinking when she changed her position in this way, opening herself up to criticism and difficult questions during the debate?
But perhaps the debate was the reason she did what she did. She knew that debate questions on TPP were coming, as the deal had just been announced, and she believed this was the best approach to take. Imagine that, at the debate, she said she would take no stance until the text was out, or she expressed support for the TPP. That would put her up on a stage with Bernie Sanders and others who strongly oppose the TPP, and maybe she didn't think TPP support or deferring a position would look very good to the voters she wants to attract in the Democratic primary.
In addition, and this might even be more important, she is well aware of the opposition to trade pacts coming from the right. Donald Trump is making a big deal out of trade, and Donald Trump is getting a lot of support in the polls. Maybe Clinton thought that opposition to the TPP could help pull some votes from Trump supporters in the general election, when he inevitably disappears and a pro-TPP candidate such as Bush, Rubio, or Kasich becomes the nominee.
I'm not totally sure any of that is right, but it it sounds plausible to me.
But back to the debate. Obviously, her decision raises lots of questions. Here are a few that I would love to see Anderson Cooper ask her:
-- If you are elected, and the TPP has not yet been passed by Congress, what actions would you take on TPP? Would you push forward with trying to improve it, by reopening negotiations with our trading partners? Or would you abandon it completely? Are there any trade agreements you would pursue if elected?
-- You said that: "I’m worried that the pharmaceutical companies may have gotten more benefits and patients and consumers — fewer." But liberal commentator Paul Krugman notes that pharmaceutical companies are unhappy with the results of the TPP negotiations, and he seems more positive about the TPP than ever before. What specific problems do you have with the TPP provisions on pharmaceuticals, and how would you improve them?
-- You expressed concern about the absence of currency manipulation rules in the TPP. A number of proposals have been offered in this regard. Have you seen any that, if included, would convince you to support the TPP?
The last two are kind of technical for a mass audience, but maybe they would ask the first one.
Unfortunately, the questions they will probably ask her will be along the lines of, "Why did you flip-flop on the TPP?", which will give her an easy opportunity to repeat her earlier statements and avoid any substantive discussion of the issues.
