Now that Barack Obama has been confirmed as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, The New York Times - of all places - has drawn attention to the very real possibility that he is the likely heir to the American unilateralism so hated by US liberals and Europeans. With free trade rather than foreign policy acting as his battle ground of choice.
It has been axiomatically assumed that an Obama presidency will bring a huge improvement in US relations with Europe and the rest of the world, with peace and love breaking out, dictators embracing the Great Satan and abandoning their wicked ways, and the lion laying down with the lamb etc etc. Hence his huge poll leads in opinion surveys in US allies questioning who respondents would like to see as the next president.
However, this assumption is short-sighted given the massive and growing opposition in the US to free trade, which has been the engine of the global economy and rise in living standards since 1945. Earlier this year, a whopping 68 percent of Americans favoured putting restrictions on free trade to protect domestic industries, with the French outpolling the US when it came to support for an extension of free trade.
This may baffle us in Britain, where there hasn't been a serious debate on the issue - Imperial Preference notwithstanding during the exceptional circumstances of the Great Depression - since Joseph Chamberlain saddled the Conservative Party with a commitment to tariff reform in the landslide defeat of 1906. When Stanley Baldwin tried it again in 1923, he too was swept out of office, incidentally paving the way for the first Labour government.
But in the US, the Democrats - the home of protectionist sentiment - have already come as close to coming out against free trade as is possible without actually making this an explicit campaign commitment. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton's standard stump speeches have been littered with anti-China sentiment (on trade, not human rights issues, note) and opposition to the various free trade agreements recently being pursued by the Bush administration. Congressional Democrats have voted consistently against free trade and have just proposed a bill that would require the president to submit plans to renegotiate all current trade agreements, before Congress considered any pending agreements and before the president negotiated any new ones. In contrast, and despite protectionist noises from some of his party, John McCain has resolutely declared for free trade.
Europe may not remember the last all-out trade wars, but the most recent outbreak of hostilities over US steel tariffs in 2003 should give pause for thought. An escalation of sanctions on both sides was only prevented by President Bush backing down.
But President Obama? Europe had better be careful what it wishes for. Bush may have challenged European conceptions about foreign policy. Obama is likely to hit Europe where it hurts most. In the pocket.
