[tvmalsv]

Interesting how different two people can come to two completely polar conclusions. I guess it depends on your social bubble, on either side.

In my experience, the right was very opposed to NAFTA (while the left was pushing it), in favor of free trade but not at the expense of jobs and manufacturing ability in the USA, and thought all these deals with China were going to enrich a possibly future adversary. By experience, I simply mean social interaction with middle class conservatives/Republicans, not experience in politics or "the party". And, I didn't really start paying attention to what was going on until the early 90s. (edited for a paragraph break)

[cmrdporcupine]

I think we have a terminology problem. If you think of Clinton and his Democrats as "left" then, sure, they were/are highly pro-neo-liberal globalization. To the rest of the world outside the US, that's nowhere close to left. They're neo-liberals, not socialists.

[tvmalsv]

That's a good point, thank you.

[reaperducer]

In my experience, the right was very opposed to NAFTA (while the left was pushing it), in favor of free trade but not at the expense of jobs and manufacturing ability in the USA, and thought all these deals with China were going to enrich a possibly future adversary.

I remember it the same way, and I was a journalist at the time and wrote many stories about GOP politicians afraid sounding warning bells about American jobs going to Mexico. Which they did. And then they went from Mexico to China.

I also remember that conservative companies like Walmart were so against NAFTA that they actively promoted Made In America goods in store and in advertising. My how times have changed.

[chipotle_coyote]

I'm 99% sure that historically speaking, the OP is correct. Wikipedia's introduction to NAFTA sums up my recollection:

> The impetus for a North American free trade zone began with U.S. president Ronald Reagan, who made the idea part of his 1980 presidential campaign. After the signing of the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the administrations of U.S. president George H. W. Bush, Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari, and Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney agreed to negotiate what became NAFTA. Each submitted the agreement for ratification in their respective capitals in December 1992, but NAFTA faced significant opposition in both the United States and Canada. All three countries ratified NAFTA in 1993 after the addition of two side agreements, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC).

Politically speaking, NAFTA passed in the Clinton administration because he was able to get enough Democrats on board. To this day, free trade doesn't seem to be strongly supported on the left, in part because it's not strongly supported by unions; it's mostly strongly supported by economists, think tanks, and publications that might be characterized more as centrist (the Council on Foreign Relations), center-right (The Economist) or libertarian. I'm not entirely sure why American conservatives in particular moved so strongly against it in the last two decades.

[ardy42]

> I'm not entirely sure why American conservatives in particular moved so strongly against it in the last two decades.

There are a couple of factions that makes up modern American conservationism. I think it was mainly big business/ideological libertarians that were strongly for free trade, but I think they were far from the majority, numbers-wise

[tvmalsv]

In case anyone sees this, thank you for the comments despite my comment being down-voted, I appreciate the insite!

[frandroid]

It was neither the "left" (get real) nor the "right" who were pushing for globalization, but multinational corporations. They happen to be on the political right because their goal was to reduce workers' wages and union power, but in fact they have controlled both wings of American politics, the Democrats (fiscally right-wing and socially liberal) and the Republicans (fiscally Right-Wing+ and socially conservative) for a very long time.

: liberal is not considered "Left" outside of the United States

[ericmay]

> liberal is not considered "Left" outside of the United States

I see this repeated as a talking point by multiple individuals. I don’t really get what the point of the comment is or what I’m supposed to learn from it or do about it. It feels pretty close to a Scotsman but to what end?