You are right, he did exactly that. I suspect he will do it a bit more. The question remains in this case, is that bad? I would love to see a more detailed answer. Here’s why. When TPP supporters make reference to protecting Asian worker’s rights or you yourself write:
“ It’s not clear how the United States can push other countries to stop abusive labor practices, illegally mined minerals, or unsustainable fishing without a trade agreement.”
You are 100% correct. If that’s what this treaty did, and we are out, then we won’t be doing that.
But what comes to mind, and what I would like to discuss, with you or anyone else who would like to, is why it’s the United States’ job to do these things at all.
There may be a case that it isn’t. Granted, the case for being deeply involved in “other countries’ buisness” may be better than the case for staying out . But it’s not established here. That’s begging the question and it undercuts the foundation of your argument. Not that we can’t do these things without the TPP, but that we even should.
And that argument is a reflection of the greater argument and debate you are bringing up here. The US is going to be lead to turn inward, at least for a bit. To turn away from concentrating on the neighborhood and concentrating on itself. Should it? Is it a disaster? Or is it long overdue? These issues are not addressed here and they should be. Answering them will more than contextualize the questions raised by your article, it will answer them.