One of the nation's top political analysts, Stuart Rothenberg, dissects politics at the congressional and statewide levels.

Stuart Rothenberg: Trade promotion becomes ultimate political vote

By Stuart Rothenberg

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Last week's vote to give the president freedom in negotiating trade agreements -- formerly known as "fast track authority" but recently re-named "trade promotion authority" -- wasn't merely another vote on Capitol Hill.

It was overwhelmingly a political vote on a politicized issue, and it has implications for the 2002 congressional elections and the 2004 presidential race.

The House passed the bill by a single vote, sending it to the Senate, where another vote with considerable political ramifications is expected to take place next year.

Any vote on trade is likely to see a nasty fight these days. While sitting presidents from both parties have for decades supported free trade, a growing coalition of conservatives and labor unions have become a formidable force against it. Indeed, opponents of free trade prevented then-President Bill Clinton from getting the fast track authority he wanted.

Because trade is such an important issue to organized labor, and to the business community and agriculture, which favors steps to increase U.S. exports, the issue has political consequences for many members of both parties.

Republican Rep. Robin Hayes, who cast one of the final votes that put the trade measure over the top, represents an area in North Carolina where textiles are important. By voting for the bill, Hayes gave his political opponents a weapon to use against him next year. His vote supporting free trade and the president was particularly difficult, since the state Legislature recently re-drew his district, making it more Democratic.

Next year's fight for the Senate could well be decided in the Midwest, which adds to the importance of any trade votes. Farmers need to be able to increase their exports, so they need fewer barriers to U.S. goods.

Democratic incumbents up in South Dakota (Tim Johnson), Minnesota (Paul Wellstone), Missouri (Jean Carnahan), Iowa (Tom Harkin) and Montana (Max Baucus) would love to help pass a farm bill next year, since they could use it as an achievement to take to the voters. But they also want to be able to show that they favor agricultural exports, so easier trade is a high priority.

Next year's Senate debate on trade promotion will take place a few months before the 2002 elections, making that vote highly visible for farm state senators standing for re-election.

The 2004 presidential contest comes into play since organized labor is such an important factor in the race for the Democratic nomination. House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Missouri), a longtime outspoken critic of free trade agreements, has plenty of support among organized labor. But with Sens. Joe Lieberman (Connecticut), John Kerry (Massachusetts), Joe Biden (Delaware), John Edwards (North Carolina) and Daschle among the Democratic senators considering a run for president, organized labor -- and the candidates' positions on trade promotion authority -- could play a role in the fight for the Democratic nomination.

That reality has to be weighed against the importance of agriculture in Iowa, which once again is likely to be the first important test of the 2002 election.

Daschle faces one of the trickier problems. As a potential presidential candidate, he must tread delicately with organized labor. But as a Midwesterner whose Number One priority next year is the re-election of his South Dakota Senate colleague, Tim Johnson, he can't appear to be anti-trade. Finally, as the leader of the Democrats, he doesn't want to give George Bush a victory, but at the same time has a responsibility to his members who believe they need to pass a bill.

One thing is sure: trade will be on the Senate's plate again next year. And once again, it will have serious political ramifications.