Thomas Donlan‘s latest editorial commentary for Barron’s takes Hillary Clinton and other politicians to task for questioning the latest high-profile trade deal.

Hillary Clinton is right: There are a lot of unanswered questions about the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. That’s hardly surprising, since the text of the agreement hasn’t yet been published. But objecting to an important international agreement before she knows what’s in it is a political tip-off that she doesn’t care what’s in it.

A couple of years ago, she said the TPP would be the “gold standard” for trade agreements, but the gold standard isn’t worth what it used to be. We surmise that all Clinton cares about in the TPP is what’s in it for her and her presidential aspirations. If the leaders, funders, and large factions of her party are against it, she’s against it, too. The national interest is of no interest.

Trade is of such economic benefit—by increasing competition and pushing labor and capital into the most productive national sectors—that the trade bureaucracy in every country should be abolished. Trade rules only impose favoritism where it should not exist.

By most reports, the TPP will go further than ever in requiring countries to favor labor and environmental standards, which were goals of the Democratic negotiators. But the AFL-CIO and environmental activists have become protectionists. Clinton has to follow.

She is living in a fool’s paradise, in the same neighborhood as the one constructed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. He focuses on one of the least significant features of the pact because it might hurt a declining home-state industry. TPP reportedly contains provisions that are said to give governments room to impose antismoking laws without being sued by tobacco companies. That’s a matter of sovereignty: Any country has the right to ban or limit tobacco sales, TPP or no TPP.