It is disturbing that this evidence of racism in the anti-NAFTA rhetoric has received scant attention. But it is not all that surprising. The silence may simply reflect the ironic fact that NAFTA supporters are almost as guilty as Perot of fanning xenophobic flames to make their case. This apparent compromise recognizes that the current political climate rewards xenophobic rhetoric--and grants bonus points for bashing Mexico or Japan. Events like the World Trade Center bombing, Chinese immigrant-smuggling and reports Mexican immigrant soaking up tax-funded service in California have turned public mood against one of America's most cherished traditions: its open borders. The lingering effects of the recession and resentment at Japan's economic "miracle," fuel protectionist desires to think locally, not globally.

Fully recognizing the political benefits of protectionism and xenophobia, the Clinton administration has chosen an unlikely--and unconvincing--strategy to sell NAFTA. President Clinton tries to paint NAFTA as bad for Japan and Europe (using the converse of the Perot axiom: Anything bad for them is good for us). He recruits Lee Iaccoca to boast that other nations fear NAFTA because the treaty would create the world's largest unified trading bloc. And he asserts that if Congress rejects NAFTA when it votes on it November 17, by the next day the Japanese finance minister will be in Mexico saying (in Clinton's words), "We've got more money than they do anyway; make the deal with us."

This manipulation of xenophobia by NAFTA supporters is especially troubling since the ultimate goal of NAFTA is to create an open global trade community--a task that is impossible if nations cultivate distrust in one another. Put aside Clinton's exaggerated promises of job creation and Perot's hysterical warnings of job loss. (Perot's most recent figure is 85 million--a full third of the entire U.S. population.)

Most economists who aren't on the Clinton or Perot payrolls agree that the economic effects of NAFTA on the U.S would be minimal. Rejection of NAFTA, though, would symbolize a trend toward U.S. protectionism that would encourage similar trends worldwide and jeopardize global free trade negotiations.

But the image that NAFTA supporters have generated so far has been one of Japan and Europe as trade predators against whom the U.S. must guard its markets--this at a time when Clinton is vigorously trying to pry open the Japanese markets to U.S. goods.

There is something uncomfortably contradictory about using protectionist rhetoric to sell free trade. And there is something self defeating and hypocritical about exploiting xenophobia to produce global openness.

Politicians are expert emotional-button pushers, and Ross Perot is the unquestioned champion of them all. But as Gore said last night while he was wining the CNN studio floor with Perot's bruised ego, "The politics of negativism and fear only go so far."

Those are wise words, and both Perot and his White House foes should heed them. NAFTA supporters do Americans no favor when they decry Perot's demagoguery and then employ demagogic and divisive tactics for their own purposes.