Photo: Hattie Page (flickr)

Conventional wisdom says that America's standing in the world will go up — maybe even way up — if either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is elected president. We'd sign multilateral global-warming treaties, seek advice from allies once again … maybe even accept an invitation to tea from Iran.

But the world is likely to respond to a Clinton or Obama presidency with only tepid applause if the two contenders continue spouting "dangerous and ill-informed" trade rhetoric, argues Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria.

In the magazine's March 10th issue, the influential columnist slapped the wrists of both Democratic contenders for promoting protectionist policies. All the talk about renegotiating Nafta, he says, has people in Latin America and India worried that one of their favored paths to greater economic growth — free trade and open markets — is about to close down.

"For a struggling farmer in Kenya," says Zakaria, in a not-so-subtle reference to Obama's roots, "access to world markets is far more important than foreign aid or U.N. programs."

The concern from abroad is real. The Economist, for example, recently warned readers to get ready for "grumpy isolationism."

But Zakaria, a left-of-center globalist, represents the concern emanating from what you might call the free-trade wing of the Democratic Party. (Online comments on his Newsweek piece include: "I'm an Obama supporter, but his crazy anti-trade talk is worrisome.") These were the New Democrats who cheered when Bill Clinton's 1993 push for Nafta seemed to finally rid the party of its longheld protectionist plank — and who hung their heads when his wife repudiated the pact in Ohio. (Obama largely followed suit, leading The New Republic's Josh Patanick to bemoan Obama's "disappointing" shift on trade. Matt Cooper of Portfolio.com labeled both Obama and Clinton "phony populists.")

Perhaps it's not surprising to see the candidates try to nuance — or, in Clinton's case, outright disown — their previous pro-trade statements. But it's worth watching how the eventual winner chooses to frame the issue this fall, and whether they can find, as Zakaria recommends, "a way to speak about the pain of globalization" while acknowledging its benefits.

One way may be to emphasize how trade can reliably advance America's stated aim to lift millions abroad out of extreme poverty. Surely the candidates can argue that America can both create good jobs and open our markets to products like cotton from Mali. Such a move would not only lend a hand to poor African farmers, but also help us climb back into the world's good graces.