But discussion about the TPP, too, is done in an opaque way. Everyone seems to have their favorite issue with it - for example information and piracy advocates will point to how grossly IP law is expanded internationally - others questions why only 5 or so chapters of a couple dozen have to do with trade if it's merely a trade deal - others will alarm at international corporate tribunals, worried that the largest and most aggressive corporations may abuse the liberal world order's tools to concentrate wealth and control.
But to understand the TPP - why it has few trade chapters relative to international law chapters and why IP and American corporate legal capabilities are strengthened as well as all of the secrecy - one needs to understand why the US has been pushing it on the Asia-Pacific region.
Washington Thinktanks and Defense Officials have come to the conclusion that the meteoric rise of China represents an existential threat to the supremacy of US hegemonic world order. The US's grand defense strategy has always been to 'balance' regions of the world where one country may otherwise dominate so that they can not then 'grow up' to play the global power game.
Take Blackwill's recent publication: Revising US Grand Strategy Toward China.
http://www.cfr.org/china/revising-us-grand-strategy-toward-c...
Blackwill suggests a series of measures: the first being to get the TPP out the door to isolate China from international trade in its region. He goes on further to suggest that the DoD should invest in cyberwarfare and other capabilities - indeed these measures are being taken, as the DoD is now partnering with VC firms inside the Valley to steer funding toward national defense.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/23/defense-department-sili...
Secretary of Defense Carter penned his interest in the TPP, publicly stating that he would rather have the TPP than another aircraft carrier.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe just visited Congress, whereupon he spoke to them about the new unprecedented collective defense pact (think Asian NATO) being entered into by the two countries which required Japan to reinterpret its constitution. In the speech he discussed the importance of the TPP for defense purposes, and took questions about the rise of China.
None of this is a defense of the TPP. What it is is a call for transparent discussion. We can do one better than those discussing the TPP behind closed doors. We can speak openly about what it gets the US and its allies.