Last week, Congressional Democrats refused to pass the US free trade agreement (FTA) with Colombia. They defended their position by citing human rights abuses against trade unionists, but many accounts dispute claims of systematic aggression against unions. Critics abounded from all sides: The Bush administration justifiably cried foul because the Democrats were reneging on a May 2007 deal to pass the FTA in return for stricter environmental and labor standards. Economists noted that Colombian exports already enter the US duty-free, meaning that the FTA would be a fairly unambiguous win for the US economy. Others, including, not surprisingly, The Economist, argued that Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has made great strides in the government’s struggle against FARC guerillas, and that he should be rewarded with more than just military aid. The publication called him “that rarest of beasts: a democratic, pro-American president winning an anti-terrorist war.” They’re right—Uribe is our main ally in the region, and for once we don’t have to compromise our principles to win a friend. Uribe currently enjoys approval ratings of over 80 percent within his country. Yeah, 80 percent. That’s not a typo.

No, the Democratic Party rejects trade agreements because it’s the workers’ party, and trade plays a role—a small role, but it may be increasing—in falling real wages and growing inequality. But the argument against trade has become less tenable as critics point out that an improved social safety net, not protectionism, is the answer to these problems. Last week, even the The New York Times called for the Democratic Party to change their tune on trade, asking the Democrats to present their electorate with evidence on the benefits of trade and trust in its ability to separate fact from fiction.

But the Times leaves out the main reason for the Democrats to jump off the anti-trade train. The Democratic Party is not only the workers’ party; it is also a party of saps. Democrats love fighting for the small fry, and in this globalizing world the small fry has increasingly become the foreign worker, and especially the foreign farmer. Unfortunately for the Democrats, their rejection of the Colombia FTA has coincided in the last week with a global food crisis, shining an ugly spotlight on how their anti-trade agenda compromises the interests of poor farmers. Shortages and riots have occurred all over the globe as the burden of skyrocketing food prices has fallen disproportionately on the poorest countries, for whom these are staple commodities. The chart below, courtesy of economist.com, summarizes this increase in prices. Note that the x-axis is in months.

There are good reasons to think that liberalized trade would have helped avoid this crisis, and that liberalizing trade may yet help ameliorate its effects, especially in the long run. Firstly, most of the poorest countries affected by this crisis are food importers, which suggests that liberalizing trade would lower the domestic price of these commodities, as Harvard economist Dani Rodrick pointed out recently in his blog. Secondly, reducing barriers to trade in food would amend the incentive structure of agriculture and help these nations make the transition from small-scale farming to large-scale production. Family farming is no longer commercially viable; in a disturbing paradox of the current food crisis, rising commodity prices have prevented poor farmers from buying the fertilizer they need to grow the crops that are most in demand. Increasing the scale of production would fix these problems.

For years, Congressional Democrats hid behind the similarly distorting policies of Republicans. While they were unwilling to budge on trade, the argument went, the Republicans were similarly unwilling to budge on the massive subsidies the US government doles out to domestic agri-business every year. Tit for tat. (In fact, US crop subsidies have been such an issue that Congressman John Olver may or may not have become visibly irritated when discussing them at an Amherst Democrats event a few nights ago.) But the crop subsidies are back on the table, and for once we have our president to thank. With his official lame-duck status, President Bush has been able to break the stalemate. The Associated Press reported on Wednesday that Bush is insisting on drastic cuts in the subsidies in the five-year farm bill going through Congress this week. For once, he is threatening to use his veto in the right way.

With the subsidies in the bag, the Democrats must jump on board with trade. They’re officially out of excuses.