The future of the United States' free-trade agenda is in big trouble. Consider this train of thought: The global economy is in a tailspin, and Republicans are being held responsible by most voters. Free trade has been a cornerstone of the Bush economic agenda. President Bush has shown ineffective leadership in economic affairs, and supported free trade. So, the logic goes, how could free trade be a cause worth saving? How could free trade be part of the solution to today's woes, not part of the problem?

And isn't free trade really another insidious attempt at economic deregulation? The word "deregulation" has rapidly become anathema on both Wall Street and Main Street. To those who know little or nothing about the complexities of global trade, "deregulation" of trade smells all too much of the financial deregulation that lined the pockets of the wealthy and hurt ordinary people. The rich get richer; the poor get poorer. Free trade must be destroying the middle class, since global corporations run by Republicans support free trade, right?

Republican presidential candidate John McCain and his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, both claim to want "change." Softening the impact of NAFTA and CAFTA, and blocking passage of new trade pacts with South Korea and Colombia, would bring a definitive turnaround from the free-trade agenda of the Bush years. That's change, isn't it? (McCain's past support for free trade doesn't seem to jibe with his insistence that he, too, wants "change." His position on free trade is one of the few economic policies that he wants to preserve from the Bush years.)

It was only during the final debate between McCain and Obama that the trade agenda surfaced, and only for a few moments. That's when McCain attempted to make an issue of the pending agreement with Colombia, arguing that the accord would help the United States economy by boosting U.S. exports to that country. However valid McCain's comments, they seemed to pass over the heads of many pundits and voters.

For his part, Obama has sent mixed messages. The Illinois senator repeatedly has said that he wants "change," but that he also favors "free trade" -- at least so long as any free trade agreements are structured to address environmental and labor issues. But many supporters of free trade fear that Obama is secretly eager to steer the U.S. economy toward protectionism at a time when further trade deregulation is critical for reviving the stagnant global economy.

Obama's rhetorical support for 'free trade' rings hollow for these critics. So what if Obama says he supports trade? No one admits to being a 'protectionist' these days; that's almost as bad as admitting you are a 'racist.'

When Obama said during a Democratic primary debate with Hillary Clinton that he would demand the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, free traders cringed. Was Obama really serious? Was he only pandering to his trade unionist supporters? Shortly thereafter, Obama reportedly told senior Canadian officials that his comments about NAFTA were meant for political consumption in the U.S. The doubts, however, linger.

As for McCain, when it comes to economic issues, the Republican candidate looks very uncomfortable, and probably unconvincing to many voters undecided about the virtues of free trade. By McCain's own admission, national security issues are his strong suit, not economics. Even if McCain were to win the White House, he'd have a hard time winning any battle for free trade in the next Congress, which will undoubtedly be controlled by the Democrats. Many Democrats in the House and Senate will be determined to oppose the Colombia and South Korea deals, especially if their candidate is defeated by McCain in a bitter presidential campaign.

To keep the trade agenda alive, the next president will have to win bipartisan support for free trade by explaining exactly what it means, and what it does not. He will need to convince the American public that, on balance, trade deregulation has created a great many jobs and generated significant economic growth. The next president will need to articulate a vision of free trade as a part of the long-term solution, not the cause of today's economic woes.

Given widespread ignorance and confusion, that task will be a tall order.

By Alan Field