The Obama administration is nothing if not pragmatic, we’re told. Obama is not guided by ideology, according to his hagiographers in the press, but is instead simply committed to doing what works. And that may be true, if you understand that to mean what works politically for Obama. It’s pragmatism, true enough, but pragmatism in the cause of satisfying Democratic interest groups.

Want to demonstrate the hollowness of Obama’s vaunted pragmatism? Just ask the next person peddling that line to explain the president’s reflexive opposition to market-opening trade agreements. The U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement — one of three pending agreements left over from the Bush administration — would add an estimated $10 billion to $12 billion to annual U.S. GDP and around $10 billion to annual merchandise exports, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission. That’s a free stimulus package. Yet Obama’s nominee for U.S. trade representative, Ron Kirk, says that the deal “simply isn’t acceptable.”

The Obama administration opposes the deal because the autoworkers’ unions oppose it. They argue that it does not do enough to reduce our trade deficit with Korea vis à vis automobiles. In fact, the FTA would require Korea to eliminate its 8 percent tariff on U.S. autos and reduce a number of other taxes that disproportionately affect U.S. cars. In return, the U.S. would give up its relatively small 2.5 percent tariff on Korean-made cars and phase out some other tariffs on light trucks. A number of observers have concluded that this is the best deal that Detroit is going to get, but its unions are intransigent. Where have we heard that before?

In opposing the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, organized labor set another impossibly high bar to clear. The administration says that certain “benchmarks” must be met before it will support the deal. In a story titled “U.S. to Toughen Its Stance on Trade,” the Washington Post reported, “Though Kirk declined to detail what those benchmarks may be, analysts have suggested that they might involve, for instance, a U.S. insistence that murders of union leaders be sharply reduced in Colombia before lending support to the deal.”

Sharply reduced? Violence against unionists in Colombia has fallen dramatically, from 275 killed in 1996 to 39 in 2007. In addition, Harvard’s Edward Schumaker-Matos has pointed out that “perhaps one-fifth, and almost certainly less than half, of the killings had to do with unionism.” That’s still a high number, but Colombia is a violent place. Even so, President Álvaro Uribe has demonstrated a remarkable commitment to reducing political violence: Since he took office five years ago, murders, kidnappings, assassinations, and other acts of terrorism have all decreased by double-digit percentages. Apparently, that’s not good enough for Obama.

Debates over environmental impacts and workers’ rights in the developing world are smokescreens that mask an important facet of the trade debate: The Left is ideologically opposed to free trade, and that fact enters into Obama’s pragmatic political calculations.

Not all liberals share that hostility to trade. Most of Obama’s economic advisers appreciate that trade liberalization allows the U.S. to shift resources to their most efficient uses and thereby expand GDP. And Obama appears to understand the dangers of outright protectionism. He did, after all, urge Congress to water down the “Buy American” provisions of the stimulus package.

But Obama also appears to calculate that he cannot push for market-opening agreements without annoying his left-wing base, with whom he shares many affinities. Therefore, his administration might move forward on the tiny U.S.-Panama deal, but the deals with Colombia and Korea are off the table — as is the stalled Doha Round of world trade talks, which Obama has shown little enthusiasm for reviving. These deals offer a cost-free way to stimulate the economy and strengthen ties with important allies. If only Obama were a little more pragmatic in pursuing the national objectives and a little less so in pursuing his own.