Your read on Bhagwati’s motives is a bit off. Though he happens to be a vociferous supporter of free trade, on any other issue he is a man of the left. He’ll say that he always votes for the Dems and that he is a huge supporter of unions. It’s not a strategic argument.

"You sort of get the feeling that Baghwati supports stronger unions on the bankshot hope that the passage of EFCA will get the unions to focus on organizing companies and stop worrying so much about trade agreements"

I sort of get the feeling Baghwati believes that Obama will throw the unions a big juicy bone in return for their support, and that better a bone that does the working class some good than one that doesn't.

There's nothing inherently weird or contradictory about being simultaneously pro-union and pro-trade.

All that said, Baghwati's writing in support of card check, and, as you might expect from a piece in which globalization's foremost academic defender argues for more unions, it's a weird piece.

It oughtn't seem weird, though. There is absolutely nothing incongruous about strong support for trade combined with strong support for progressive economic policies. Just ask the Danes. Or read up on FDR.

It's more that the primary opponents of trade agreements in the US tend to be labor unions. Baghwati writes as if he thinks EFCA might change this, but I don't really think it will. It may be that he also supports unions for other reasons, but that's not where he spends time in this piece.

Baghwati's perspective is actually pretty common amongst people on the left of Indian background. Keep in mind that when people decry "cheap foreign labor," these are our families that you're talking about. Left-leaning Indian-Americans find nothing inconsistent about favoring strong unionization alongside economic growth in the developing world (including India). "Globalization" (whatever that means) need not be a scapegoat.

Bhagwati also supports capital controls--to a certain extent. His thing really is free trade.

If you read "In Defense of Globalization," you'll find he takes a lot of opportunities to brandish his lefty credentials, from being against drilling in ANWR to being confronted at a party by Scalia complaining that Bhagwati's uncle (who is on India's highest court) is worse (meaning farther left) than Souter.

There's nothing inherently weird or contradictory about being simultaneously pro-union and pro-trade. -N

Well, not if you saw these views as unconnected. But lets be honest, they aren't. Most people who favor free-trade don't really think it will make anyones life better. They just want cheaper labor. As such, 99% of the time they also want to break unions.

I'm sure you believed the bullshit about 'job training' that never manifested too. There's the bullshit free traders say, and then there's what their actions imply.

I urge reading Bhagwati's globalization book to see how he sets up the argument, because it's not the stereotype that the simple-minded like to abuse.

For a wonkish blog, also, your reading of Bhagwati's piece seems curiously uninterested in the argument about what causes wages to stagnate. The fact that the AFL-CIO and SEIU have distinct interests does not mean that genuine and interesting questions are not in play, and those are the questions you would expect Bhagwati to pursue.

Deeper immersion in his work will also help you remember where the "h" goes!