Obama re-prioritizing free trade to appease republicans
Strassel 2013 (2-14-13, Kimberley A. Strassel is a member of Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, “The Obama Free-Trade Agenda, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324162304578304533741973160.html)
Mr. Obama's promise in his Tuesday speech to make free trade a centerpiece of economic revival was one of the few moments that earned him Republican and business-community applause. Trade gurus were heartened by both the attention the president gave the subject, as well as the scope of his ambitions. Mr. Obama vowed to not only finish a long-lingering trade pact with trans-Pacific nations, but to kick off a far-reaching agreement with the European Union. This would be a remarkable turnaround for a White House that has up to now treated trade with thinly disguised disdain. The highlight of its trade agenda are three free-trade pacts—with South Korea, Panama and Colombia—that were signed in the Bush administration, and which the Obama White House took three years to get around to asking Congress to pass. Beyond that, Mr. Obama has shown little appetite for taking on his union and environmentalist base, which oppose free trade on principle.
Intervention and engagement results in selective economic action not global trade - leaders use nationalism to justify economic decisions
Costa 2013 (Anthony Costa - Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, “Selective engagement with the global economy, prioritizing growth, spurs inequality”, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/nations-can-try-promotion-%E2%80%93-not-protectionism)
National security arguments also prompt intervention, such as scrutiny by the US government of Chinese telecommunications firms, like Huawei and ZTE, to sell in the American market. Upset about the elimination of any French jobs, the French government threatened to nationalize ArcelorMittal units in France, owned by an Indian steel magnate, after he proposed closing two inactive blast furnaces.Not all states intervene, though, too often indifferent, even callous to the plight of their citizens. In fact, most states fail to govern their economies well in the face of challenges and opportunities emanating from the world economy. Only a few states have the capacity to intervene effectively.Today these include ambitious developing states such as Brazil, Russia, China and India, known as BRIC, and East Asian economies. These countries have a history of state-led development with global and regional political and economic ambitions in the midst of other powerful states. The concept of economic nationalism is used for selective engagement with the world economy. Rather than the orthodox notion of economic nationalism, defensive in nature and nation-centered, I offer a more dynamic understanding – economic nationalism in motion. This version, first proposed in the Review of International Political Economy, 2009, suggests that the practice is influenced by pragmatic considerations rather than ideology – akin to Deng Xiaoping’s proverbial cat that catches mice irrespective of its color – especially under fluid circumstances of economic growth, emerging competitive industries and, most importantly, as national capitalists mature. Earlier economic nationalism meant protection; today it’s promotion, though the basic motive for both is ensuring national economic interests. This ability to navigate changing circumstances and priorities pragmatically contributes to the dynamic movement of the practice of economic nationalism.