Stop the Presses: Republicans Despise Free Trade... Do Their Candidates?
This is the moment I've been waiting for. Year after year, the Wall Street Journal pumps up the virtues of "free trade" through its own editorials, submissions on the op-ed page from various luminaries, rants against anyone who dares to challenge the orthodoxy and slanted news coverage of trade-related matters.
Now, despite all their efforts, the Journal reported last week that the vast majority of Republicans completely disagree with them. I'm tempted to do a victory dance, but I'd rather see the Republican presidential candidates respond. They have a chance at Tuesday's debate in Dearborn, Michigan, a state devastated by the job losses that result from failed U.S. trade policy. And they have a chance to listen to the concerns of voters in Iowa at our "Keep It Made in America" Town Hall meeting on October 17 that will showcase the growing bipartisan chorus for more accountability in our trade policy: challenging the currency and subsidy cheating employed by countries like China, making sure our imports are safe, and negotiating deals that actually improve our balance of trade, rather than worsening it.
Now I'm waiting for the next wave of stories, the ones that ask how Republicans could arrive at this position. Have they failed to read basic economic texts? Have they succumbed to the jingoism of Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan? Do they get upset when the Ivy League professors tell them that all Americans need is more education in order to have job security? Or do they merely think Tom Friedman is annoying and want to oppose anything he says?
I have a different explanation, one that is more plausible. We have an enormous overall trade deficit and a record trade deficit with China. Even a declining dollar and the Chinese product recall wave won't put much of a dent in it. This deficit -- and the massive dollar reserves China has built up -- impacts all sorts of things in the U.S.: jobs, interest rates, the safety of our food and consumer products, our national security, and the flexibility we have in diplomacy.
Republican voters, like most Americans, want our government to be accountable, to provide security, and to encourage responsibility. With our current trade policy, they strike out on all three counts.
Unsafe imports arrive on our tables and in our toy boxes because U.S. trade policy and regulators favors cheap and fast imports over safe ones.
Many manufacturers and farmers face overseas competition that is subsidized -- unfairly -- while the Administration often turns a blind eye, costing us profits, jobs and income, and ripping at the social fabric of the heartland.
Despite lots of evidence that existing trade deals don't work particularly well, the Congress is asked to approve even more of them without a serious reassessment of the model.
The offshoring of manufacturing has reduced America's ability to supply our military and to ensure the smooth operation of our economy. Has anyone bothered to think how a Chinese blockade of Taiwan would impact our commerce, given our dependence on Asian-made computer and electronic goods? It could be a crushing blow.
Adam Smith and David Ricardo -- two of the Journal's favorites -- never really contemplated a world of globalized, stateless corporations that could shift production around at will. But that's the world we now live in. That's why it is time for the Republicans running for President to decide whether they want to embrace 19th century theory or prepare for 21st century reality. We know where the voters are -- in the here and now.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
True Republicans do not despise free trade. We dream about it. However, the neocons hi-hacked that concept and created a corporate welfar state.
The alternative proposed isn't going to work either....socialism. Bot the neocons and the dems in office are both elitist subject to corporate and partisan lobby efforts. we'll always have it, yes.
but, we've had it better in check before...much better...and neither party now can clame they will do better than the other. it will be just a redirection of funds. a. military industrial complex or b. entitlements
still bankcrupt, still unrepresentative government.
vote for a constitutionalist, vote ron paul
former democrat for ron paul
pw
Quite magnanimous ( or stupid ) of the USA to engage in trade that doesn't benefit us and it just builds up other countries economically while our own suffers the consequences.
amen jammb. free trade rules, its jut that we haven't had it....we've had corporate welfare enabled by crooked Republicans AND Democrats....lets get lobby interestes out of the Hill, get the CFR off of our back and we could return to representative government.
wow, what a concept.
vote ron paul.
the problem is a matter of semantics...
What IS good and true of conservatism has been manipulated ...into...
bill of rights = patriot act
prisoner of war = enemy combatant
torture = enhanced interogation
conservative = neocon or Republican
fair trade = free trade
We have NOT HAD true free trade under this administration. If we did, we would be FREE. FREE TRADE IS FAIR TRADE.
Please do not confuse us fiscal conservatives with neocons (everyone on stage tonight except Ron Paul) or generally lump us into the republican party of this election. This administration has done more to undermine the meaning of laws by simply changing the semantics and applicable issues in order to circumvent transparancy of their hidden agendas....power and money.
a free market economy isn't supply side or demand side. its free, and it self-corrects. but, the monetary system must be based upon a tangible commodity. Hell, I'd rather have the dollar based upon Mayor Judy's mention of 9/11 or Billary's mention of healthcare for everyone than our current federal reserve note. At least it would be predictable.
Olehphart and marmann et al. I had the same sentiments and was amazed to hear the Clinton Sec. of Labor talk sbout our once illustrious middle Americans as if they were the discorded trash of the grist of history. At least Pat B. was not self deceiving in disdaining to call precipitious decline the natural order of things. These guys who are molding popular opinion see themselves as masters of the world, not citizens of the American Republic. Their role is to design those money making paradigmns that provide the greatest opportunity for the greatest number of people and owners in the world. The decline of our democracy is an inevitable consequence of the rise and fall of capitalistic systems. No big deal for superior, worldly intellects.
They have forgotten that they would be the captives of history if they were born almost anywhere else in the world. Self-interest and selfishness and common greed for power and glory have terribly harmed their benefit and beneficence to the Constitution of the United States of America. They would do well by rereading our Constitution, reexamining and reconsidering. Or will they chose for their children to live under the magnificent yoke of timeless autocracy for not having stood for our Nation's Preamble?
What voters think about 'free trade' doesn't matter especially if they are opposed to it. It's the corporations that matter, what do they think about it.The term 'free trade' is b.s. It's about moving capital freely around the world. That is the only thing free about 'free trade'. This of course facilitates money laundering. All one has to do is walk around Cancun, Mexico and observe the store fronts which are solely for the purpose of laundering money. That's the free in 'free trade'.That's what NAFTA does.
I highly recommend Charles Lewis & Margaret Ebrahim's(of the Center for Public Integrity) Op-Ed in the Washington Post; 12/26, 1993 "NAFTA-Math, Clinton got his Trade Deal, but how many millions did it cost the Nation?"
Clinton's point men on pushing NAFTA through the Democratic House of Reps. were Rahm Emanuel & Bill Daley according to Naftali Bendavid's recent bio of Emanual. Before they started making deals & twisting arms only 5 house democrats publically supported NAFTA, which was not introduced by Clinton but George H.W. Bush.
Sorry fool...Clinton owns NAFTA
It is extremely unfortunate that it took this long for so many lower and middle class republicans to realize that those politicians they vote for are mostly responsible for the outsourcing of their good-paying jobs with benefits. Now maybe they understand why there are no decent blue collar jobs left, and why they have to now settle for Wal-jobs and McJobs.
For those on the anti-war left who also oppose free trade generally, and support taking a hard line with China over human rights abuses, etc., I would question the logic of your position. To my mind, there is no better insurance policy to prevent a war with China than the maintenance of a robust Sino/U.S. trade partnership. Currently, a war between the two countries is unthinkable primarily because of the economic devastation it would bring to both. I would argue that it is nearly impossible to go to a war with another country when so much of your own economic prosperity is intrinsically linked to trade and investment with that country. The reason France and Russia opposed the war with Iraq, for example, had nothing to do with the wisdom or finer morals of Chriac and Putin, and everything to do with the billions of dollars each country had at stake in Iraq. Would we be facing war now with Iran if General Motors, IBM, GE and Coca Cola had the same billions invested in Tehran that they do in Beijing? I don’t think so. You can decry the evils of capitalism all you want, but more than U.N. intervention, American hegemony, or any other imaginable force or ideology, in the future, free trade will be the sheriff that maintains peace on earth, simply because in a globalized economy, war with your trading partners is just too expensive.
Hey I have a wonderful idea on how avoid war with China. How about we DON'T BOMB THEM? Think that'll work? And how about we send the neocons off to write white papers at the American enterprise institute. To me that works better than outsourcing our future.
Great, so we can continue owing billions of debt to a communist country, and better yet, continue to import potentially unsafe goods.
Finally, we can keep ourselves in the questionable position of needing to import crucial parts needed to assemble weapons for most of our military (bombers, tanks, etc).
Yes, clearly there is no downside.
As so often the case, this argument is framed with an either/or parameter. Superstar would give us the option of 'free trade' or no trade.
International trade agreements have a very long history. It is only relatively recently that 'trade agreements' include the elements of abdication of national sovereign law to a system of oversight that is non-elected and has more multinational corporate interest, that the interest of the citizens of the engaging nations.
Trade partnerships are a key to mutual respect and create a natural aversion to conflict. But the agreements must be mutually beneficial, and in concert with the national intersest of the citizens not the corporations.
Don't put words into my mouth, akoop. I never suggested that the option was free trade or no trade. Iran and Iraq were used as extreme examples to highlight the point that in relationships where the U.S. has/had little or no economic interests, the case for war is/was much easier to make. We don’t have free trade with China now. Far from it. My point was that ever growing economic engagement, as embodied by the goal of eventual free trade, is a fundamental guarantor of peace, specifically with China, a nation so often cast both on the left and right as our great, future rival. This is a reality that members of the anti-globalization left have chosen to ignore. In a world of robust trade barriers, nationalism and protectionism, wars of self interest are much more likely. The rivalries of the 19th century that led to the First World War were all based on such factors. My point was that it is contradictory to consider yourself anti-war and anti-free trade. Despite the myriad and painful flaws of our current free trading schemes, I believe the principle of free trade is a sound and beneficial one, and we should be working toward improving our current and future trade agreements instead of trying to eradicate them.
oh, now you're afraid of going to war with China because it will upset the 'free market' capitalism meme. what a puss
The republicans will blame it all on Bush and get back in office that way.
We are less secure due to stirring up the wasp nest in the Mid East.
Yes, even our children have been exposed to toxic material from imports. It is unbelievable that the food and drug administration didn't test what is coming in. Why don't we ever see anyone fired or put in jail?
Inflation is going to go crazy due to the money Bernnake pumped out to save the banks. That will put the nail in the middleclass coffin coffin.
Interest rates will have to go up to double digits to stop inflation in the future.
Republicans always leave a mess for the Democrats to clean up. It would serve them right if they were re elected. They would be in jail by the end of their next term.
Most of us would have made more money in a savings account considering the 2000 era bubble crash and inflation.
Unless a person is rich enough to have a lot of money in the stock market, they are paying more in higher prices than they are earning off the stock market. Most of the prices we pay for essentials are what makes the profits in the market. Imports helped keep prices down, but as the dollar weakens the less imports will help the consumer. Still we have to take a chance on the market or get even more behind the cost of living.
That is why it is up to the rest of us to remind everyone (all the morons who will forget in a couple of years -- if they haven't already) that all of the republican politicians jumping ship now (and those who will jump ship in the future) were in bed with the Bush administration for the vast majority of its disastrous policies.
neener neener them vs. us.
you don't get it. its the power elite, and they only disguise themselves in Rep or Dem clothing for political fodder.
Open up your eyes...they both succumb to the 80-20 rul when passing a bill, then reverse it next time....all subject to lobbyists.
The Democrats may clean up a few messes, but we've elected Republicans (and shameful the neocons have hi-jacked that trust) to get us out of two wars: vietnam and korea. oh, and we elected bush because he was going to have a humble foreign policy...no intervention and no nation building...huh.
...at least it used to be good.....now? well, he just plain lied. that doesn't mean there are not many, many good conservatives out there that do not agree with the neocons fascist agenda.
oh, and dems
and libertarians
and independents
old
young
black
white
hispanic
religious
athiest
gay
straight
and on
and on
vote ron paul
www.ronpaul2008.com
www.dailypaul.com
The Wall Street Journal's editorial pages have long suffered the same disconnect that yawns between beltway insiders and the rest of the country. With newscorp's recent purchase of the journal, we can expect the rest of their pages to quickly follow suit.
Terrific piece. Good job, Scott.
It's refreshing to read something here that acknowledges Reps have admirable goals, even if they disagree with the means.
Google Ron Paul. He speaks truth to power on this (and all) issue(s).
Free trade is not possible as long as we subsidize the competition. The situtation today is the same as Dad giving you money to buy Mom's birthday gift. You really have nothing at stake.
This is where we are today. The competition is operating on our dime. Great for them, great for the PTB, tragic for those of us who have to work for a living, then pay taxes to support the system til we become expendable.
Drammatically raise prices and lower consumer choice and see how people react to "free trade" then. They will want it -- a lot.
Americans need to learn to pay the real price of our lifestyles. Anything less is unsustainable and threatens our national security. We must reject this dangerous mantra of "living the life without paying the price". We're going to pay eventually.
Big deal. Unlike the Democrat Party leadership, I'm liberal. I don't like free trade either. Why would I want my country to trade with countries who don't care about their workers or the environment? How can the American workforce compete with 3rd world workers making 10 cents an hour (making shoes sold for $300) with no benefits or safety standards? No, the US needs to rework its trade and tax policies to encourage trade countries with enforced workers' rights laws and enforced living wages. It's the most effective and ethical way to protect our labor force and that of our trading partners.
Almost exactly my thoughts and words except for the liberal tag. I prefer to think of myself as a humanist who has evolved beyond the muck of current self-serving political thought.
How can we change the entire political and social structure in a peaceful non-violent way? Citizen imposed Six Years and Out.
In 1949 South Korea and India both had about the same per-capita income. However, Ghandi imposed a protectionist trade policy based on the argument: "How can the Indian workers ever compete with European and American companies that use machines?" By the time India abandoned protectionism the per capita income of India was less than a tenth of South Korea which had embraced free-trade.
Just as antisemitism was the "socialism of fools" protectionism is the libralism of fools.
Duh-huh. Tell that to the soon to be former employees of the manufacturing facility next to the one I work at. It's the third one in town in the last five years to announce its upcoming move to China. We have fewer and fewer living wage jobs available to a growing population. How is /that/ a good thing?
Loading comments…
Posted October 8, 2007 | 05:30 PM (EST)