ALBUQUERQUE — When the news that Bill Richardson would be named commerce secretary came out, political pundits immediately starting characterizing it as a “demotion.” His impressive resume was referenced as proof that such a gig just isn’t good enough. An angered Latino punditry claimed that the Latino community was being slighted by Obama’s Cabinet choices, compounded by the delay in announcing Richardson for the Commerce gig. Ruben Navarrette Jr. encapsulates these views by calling Richardson’s appointment not only a “snub” but being “slapped again” because many believe Richardson was second choice for the position.

As though joining the Cabinet is a personality contest. As though Richardson isn’t assuming a position of considerable power.

Richardson is probably getting exactly what he wants, short of secretary of state. As any cursory examination of Richardson’s activities during his years as governor shows, he has a significant interest in economic development. And the goal of the U.S. Commerce Department is to foster and promote U.S. industry, both at home and abroad. This is probably the reason its such a gargantuan department, with innumerable “bureaus” in what Politico describes as a “sprawling bureaucratic fiefdom.”

Richardson will be the head honcho in charge of the next U.S. Census — the one that sets the stage for a decade of statistical wrangling. In fact, Commerce accumulates, synthesizes, and spits back out a huge amount of data about the U.S. economy and population. It also administers the Patent and Trademark office, not to mention the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. You know, the “Internet.” The list goes on.

The point is that the Commerce Department is a grab-bag that ultimately makes sense. It’s about keeping the economy cranking — data and infrastructure are a big part of that, as is trade. And it’s a place that some think is well-suited for Richardson’s next move.

Dante Di Gregorio, University of New Mexico professor, at the Anderson School of Management, told the Independent that Richardson’s knowledge of government and ability to manage big initiatives across departments will transfer well to a department with the scope found at Commerce.

Di Gregorio also speculated that Richardson’s penchant for big initiatives — think of the Spaceport, the Railrunner, the development of the film industry — might lead to a big initiative or two for the Commerce Department.

“His forte is building the train tracks,” DiGregorio said, “not just keeping the trains running on time. Maybe the Commerce Department will see bigger things than it already does.”

Commerce and Trade

Through the International Trade Administration, the Commerce Department promotes and represents U.S. industry in the international arena. And it also rules on allegations by domestic companies of unfair trade practices on the part of foreign countries, which might include subsidies of particular industries or the dumping of products in this country below wholesale prices. The department calls its role one that ensures the “full compliance by foreign nations with trade agreements.”

The tension in Richardson’s new role is found in the balancing act of fostering domestic industry on the one hand, and creating an open trade environment between countries–what some people call “free trade”–on the other.

Richardson has a reputation as a free-trade advocate who on the domestic front pushes low taxation, public investment in private ventures to spur economic development, and market-based solutions to social problems. In this respect he’s a Clintonite — a DLC Democrat through and through. What makes him an interesting choice for Commerce, though, is his internationalist perspective and interest in diplomacy.

UNM Political Science Professor Wendy Hansen told the Independent that his diplomatic resume makes him an excellent choice for Commerce — that in Richardson, Obama may have found a person with the political skills and ideological orientation necessary to craft difficult compromises.

While Richardson is a self-described free trader, he also seems to have evolved in his thinking about free trade regimes. In a visit to the Council on Foreign Relations this past summer, he spoke frankly about his views on trade and NAFTA. He was no longer running for president but was certainly still positioning himself for a spot in the next administration. In this light, his comments might be construed as being as much about himself as about what we might expect an Obama administration to prioritize.

Regarding NAFTA, Richardson said it had been a “slight plus” due to the jobs it had created along the border. At the same time, he said, it had cost plenty of jobs in the Midwest. And the side agreements have been a “joke,” he said. He tempered these remarks by saying he was a “free-trade Democrat” which is an “endangered species in the Democratic Party.”

The reason free-trade Democrats might be an endangered species (if they really are) may be the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs due to NAFTA and other free trade zones. Many critics highlight the fact that “free trade” agreements are often constructed outside of the context of labor rights and the environment — which should be addressed at the least in side agreements. Richardson pays a lot of attention to the importance of side agreements, but his remarks at the Council of Foreign Affairs place his concerns in the context of the Mexican economy and the border region.

Richardson attributed the recent large wave of Mexican immigrants to the U.S. to the neglect of side agreements in NAFTA which should have led to job creation, environmental protection and infrastructure built in Mexico. This is the international perspective that Hansen suspects might temper a tendency at the Commerce Department to favor U.S. business interests, to the point of utter bias, she said.

In her research, Hansen has looked at how the Commerce Department handles charges of unfair trade leveled by U.S. domestic companies against other countries. She said that the bias in favor of U.S. industry is evident.

“Well over 90 percent of the rulings are in favor of U.S. businesses,” Hansen said. “This has caused friction with other countries, and one thing other countries have tried to do is change this in the WTO [World Trade Organization].”

The outcome of these rulings, which Richardson will have the final say on, are often increased tariffs on a country’s imports. Hansen said the bias can often be laid at the feet of the superior data the United States collects. The Commerce Department is a data-driven machine, while other countries might lack the technological infrastructure necessary to provide the data requested by the department in the time allotted. So, essentially, the rulings are often made based on the data provided only by U.S. industry.

The imbalance in rulings illustrates what many smaller countries consider hypocrisy — the United States is the main cheerleader (or “pusher” depending of how you look at it) of free trade structures, but protects its own industry at the expense of smaller countries by imposing barriers to one of the largest markets in the world.

“It gets political because its country specific — if they rule against China but not Germany, it may look like we’re attacking China,” Hansen said. “Richardson will make the final decision. He can say — the stats may tell us dumping is going on, but for diplomatic reasons we aren’t going to rule against this country. This understanding of diplomatic needs might serve the U.S. well.”

Ultimately, though, the mission of the Commerce Department is to protect and promote U.S. industry. Like every other country, U.S. interest lies in developing its own economy. Richardson’s legacy at the Commerce Department will most likely be viewed in terms of whether or not he’s had a positive impact on U.S. industry, including the quality of jobs found here.

As it turns out, this mission doesn’t seamlessly mesh with the “free trade” international rules and structures that have been developed over the past couple of decades. In this respect, his free trade credentials are likely to be tested in more than a few cases.