Radical Perspective

        The complexity of the North American Free Trade Agreement in terms of its effect on the economy and the people of Mexico, allows for a broad range of interpretation and acceptance.  For many who hold the radical world view, NAFTA represents a form of neo-colonialism that allows powerful multinational corporations to control the political, economic and social elements of a foreign society, as a result of capitalistic competition and greed.  The radical world view, being primarily concerned with the well-being of society as a whole, finds the elements of free trade associated with NAFTA to be particularly alarming.  Such individuals are thus horrified as multinational corporations establish free trade zones in which to manipulate impoverished workers, destroy natural environments and commit human rights abuses, all for the immense wealth of a few individuals.
 
        The revolutionaries of society do not simply believe in accepting these appalling injustices however, but strongly believe in the need to overthrow a faulty status quo.  In this case the Zapatistas are a shining example of the revolutionary view point.  Fed up with centuries of a status-quo that justified state oppression, institutionalized poverty, racism, classism and sexism, the Zapatistas rose up with force to overthrow this system in hopes of establishing a new one.  With justice as the single most important element in their perspectives, they had no choice but to stand up to the cycles of injustice and strive towards healing the wounds of five hundred years.  Furthermore, their strong preoccupation with the evils of the class system was another motivating factor that would prohibit them from accepting NAFTA, which would only benefit the very wealthy at the shattering expense of the poor.  In short, for the Zapatistas, and for revolutionaries the world over, NAFTA is a terrifying representation of multinational corporations quickly taking their place as the most powerful political and economic forces on the planet.  Clearly, revolutionaries feel, this domino effect of neo-liberalism must stop before it is too late, and another more just and equal system must be established.

Liberal Perspective   

       From liberal world view, the North American Free Trade Agreement looks like a pretty good deal.  NAFTA takes care of individuals and private businesses through promotion of free trade and government deregulations.  Though strongly supported by corporations, states are the actors in the North American Free Trade Agreement, working on lowering tariffs and expanding NAFTA to eventually encompass the entire hemisphere.

        The down side, from the liberal point of view is that, while some individuals are benefiting from NAFTA, others clearly are not (as exemplified by the Zapatistas in Chiapas).  While NAFTA sounds like a good idea, liberals will recognize that the manner in which the agreement and its implementation have been handled is not ideal.  Promotion of free trade may on the one hand be beneficial, but brings into question whether or not free trade is really free.  Though large corporations are certainly seeing the benefits of trade deregulations, small and medium sized companies are struggling, with more than 20,000 of them going bankrupt in 1996 alone (Garcia).

        In terms of economic liberalism, most economic interests are viewed as mutual interests.  Free trade is generally thought to be a good idea because the exchange process can be mutually beneficial.  Liberals will say that with careful attention to building international organizations and institutions, states will benefit from free trade.  The liberal view is that governments should regulate markets only to help them function more efficiently, and since it appears that less is more in terms of governmental restrictions and free trade, NAFTA's deregulations could be beneficial.  In a liberal hegemony, a dominant state, such as the United States, tries to create an international order that facilitates free trade, such as NAFTA and its potential expansion to include the rest of Latin America.

 Neo-liberalism, prominent throughout Latin America, is a new twist on this old type of economic liberalism.  It aims to limit government restrictions; reduce wages, even if that means de-unionizing workers; end price controls; cut public expenditure for social services; privatize state-owned enterprises; and promote individual responsibility.
 

Conservative Perspective

        Radical progressives have much to share in their viewpoint with conservatives when it comes to issues of free trade like NAFTA.  These two groups, which seemingly occupy opposite ends of the political spectrum, come together on the issue of economic sovereignty, circumventing the economic liberals who favor free trade above all other concerns.  While many radicals oppose NAFTA on grounds of minimum wage and human rights, there is much overlap with the conservative viewpoint, which focuses on U.S. interests, such as governmental sovereignty and worker's wages.
 
        The fundamental concerns of conservatives revolve around societal order and the preservation of the status quo.  Therefore, conservatives worry about the global changes brought about by NAFTA.  For example, conservatives fear that state power is being undermined by the growing influence of multinational corporations.  Conservatives link this corporate expansion with the rise of international economic agreements, such as NAFTA and GATT.  This in turn, leads to the privatization of state owned corporations and the loss of governmental autonomy.
 
        Billionaire and presidential candidate Ross Perot was very vocal during the implementation and ratification of NAFTA, expressing his protectionist viewpoints quite vehemently.  Many criticized his outspokenness, claiming he would ruin NAFTA's chance of passing in Congress.  Nonetheless, he was quite consistent in his Populist conservative views on the issue of free trade in North America.

        Pat Buchanan, also a presidential candidate, and a well-regarded conservative commentator,  in many ways epitomizes the conservative viewpoint on NAFTA.  Buchanan has repeatedly said that any involvement by the United States in global free trade should be judged by whether it increases the standard of living of workers in the U.S., and (in addition) all the workers of the world.  His focus seems to waver between a traditional protectionist focus on "saving U.S. jobs" and criticism of what free trade enhancing agreements like NAFTA will do in terms of the global job market.  He calls his view point "economic nationalism," emphasizing protection of the vital economic interests of the United States.  Buchanan insists that there is no reason U.S. workers should not continue to have the highest standard of living in the world, and blames a U.S. government too focused on the desires of foreign lobbyists for favorable trade.

        Buchanan also sees NAFTA as conflicting with U.S. sovereignty, as it is not ammendable by Congress, and puts non-elected leaders who have no affiliation with any country in charge of the internal affairs of the U.S.  He says that "though advertised as Îfree trade,' [NAFTA] is anti-freedom."  Buchanan sees NAFTA as being not just about trade, but rather, as a "skeletal structure for world government," a New World Order of sorts.

        Most importantly, he sees NAFTA and other "free-trade" as a defining issue of conservatism. Buchanan's brand of conservatism will not bow to the interests of business before that of workers.  He is incensed at Republicans in Congress who, with fast-track authority, would trade away one of their few remaining sovereignties, that of trade.  Buchanan exhibits the prototypical viewpoint of a conservative.