Free Trade and Security

House democrats again showing once again that they do not belong in government. They dump on trading partners to appease their labor masters. I hope that they get thrown out on their asses.

The left opposes free trade because they love the poor.

They love the poor so much; that they don't want anything to stop them from being poor.

Clinton pushed NAFTA.

The left doesn't oppose free trade.

They oppose FTAs with investor protections. They want protections for labor, the environment, and social justice.

Reagan and Mulroney created the Canada-US FTA before that. It was strongly opposed by the Liberal and New Democratic parties in Canada (it was essentially the only issue in the 1988 election). Mulroney and Bush I laid the groundwork for NAFTA -- Clinton did push it, and brought it home; but, Reagan and Bush I deserve most of the credit.

Free trade seems to have supporters and opponents on both sides of the political spectrum -- but, the strongest opposition comes from the left.

"Mulroney and Bush I laid the groundwork for NAFTA -- Clinton did push it, and brought it home; but, Reagan and Bush I deserve most of the credit."

Oh they deserve something all right.

Actually, it just appears that the biggest opposition comes from the left because free republic keeps misfiling all the conservative articles that criticize NAFTA and the Seucrity and Propsperity Partnership Agreement. See for yourself! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1664180/posts

Actually, it just appears that the biggest opposition comes from the left because free republic keeps misfiling all the conservative articles that criticize NAFTA and the Seucrity and Propsperity Partnership Agreement.

That's nonsense. The US has never been economically isolationist except in the imagination of demagogues like Pat Buchanan. In the past, there were many in the democratic party who could be counted on to support the freedom to trade. That's changed now because the rats are opposed to anything the Republicans are in favor of and they are more beholden today than ever to special interest groups who love their taxpayer funded supports, cushy jobs, and don't want to have to compete.

Conservatives should abhor the protectionists policies supported by the likes of Buchanan and the left. The end result will be greater government influence over the economy, less growth, fewer jobs and declining wealth. Unless, of course, you are in favor of more government control.

The US has never been economically isolationist except in the imagination of demagogues like Pat Buchanan

T'sk. Nationalism, and protectionism, or the American System is not isolationism.

To imply otherwise is a defamatory leftist insinuation...that was earlier made in the State of the Union this year by the Administration. W has proven definitively he is not conservative...nor a good student of history. In effect, by his rhetorical sophistry, he unkowingly slams all of these predecessors to him (and many more besides, including George Washington):

Mislabeling to mislead.

This is just like when the Administration and the Left calls Illegal Aliens, "Undocumented Guest Workers."

Wikipedia some appropriate economic history to set the record straight:

National economic policy
According to historian Michael Lind

"Many things that educated people in the English-speaking world think that they know about economic history are, in fact, false. It is not true that there was a golden age of free trade ended by America's adoption of the much-reviled Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930; a tariff which is unfairly blamed for the rise of fascism and the second world war-phenomena which originated, respectively, in the cultural trauma of the first world war and the geopolitical ambitions of Germany, Japan and Italy, rather than the depression.
The school of thought in economic policy with the greatest global influence between the 1800s and the mid-20th century was not the laissez-faire "English School" of Adam Smith and David Ricardo but the rival school of economic nationalism, which is more accurately labelled as "strategic economics" because its prescriptions have been followed successfully by empires, trading blocs and city-states as well as nation states. In the US in the 1790s, the brilliant first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton, laid out a programme for the industrialisation of the country by means of infant-industry protection and other policies.
Hamilton's programme was developed in the next generation by Henry Clay, under the name of "the American System," and implemented under Clay's disciple and admirer Abraham Lincoln and his successors during the period between the 1860s and the 1940s, when the US became the planet's leading manufacturing economy behind a high wall of tariffs.
The lessons of the "American school" of "national economy," transmitted to Germany by Friedrich List, formed the basis of state-sponsored industrialisation in Wilhelmine Germany. Moreover, during a visit to Germany in the 1870s, Toshimichi Okubo, one of the leaders of the Meiji Restoration, became acquainted with the Hamilton-List tradition. Returning to Japan, Okubo founded the ministry of home affairs, which promoted Japanese industry, and in 1874 issued an equivalent of Hamilton's 1791 Report on Manufactures, in the form of his influential Proposal for Industrial Promotion.
By the early 20th century, then, the US, Germany and Japan had successfully used strategic economics to catch up with Britain and (in the case of the first two nations) to surpass it. Even Britain's dominions of Australia and Canada, emulating American and German practice rather than British theory, insisted on the right to use tariffs to keep out goods from Britain and establish their own industrial base.
Not that Britain had any right to complain. From the Tudors until the early 19th century, Britain used various protectionist devices to promote its own industries. The 18th-century prime minister Robert Walpole, remembered chiefly today as a corrupt politician pilloried by Alexander Pope, turns out, according to Chang, to have been an industrial-policy mastermind who inspired Alexander Hamilton. Only when Britain's industrial supremacy was secure did the British begin to promote free trade, in the hope of wiping out competitive industries in the US, continental Europe and elsewhere. Following the Napoleonic wars, which stimulated the growth of American manufacturing by suspending transatlantic trade, Lord Henry Brougham in 1816 told parliament: "It is well worthwhile to incur a loss upon the first exportation, in order by the glut, to stifle in the cradle, those rising manufactures, in the US, which the war had forced into existence, contrary to the natural course of things." The "natural course of things," according to British politicians and British theorists of free trade, required the US to supply Britain with agricultural goods and raw materials and to import, rather than make, all of its machinery and manufactured goods.
John Adams wrote in 1819: "I am old enough to remember the war of 1745, and its end; the war of 1755, and its close; the war of 1775, and its termination; the war of 1812, and its pacification...The British manufacturers, immediately after the peace, disgorged upon us all their stores of merchandise and manufactures, not only without profit, but at certain loss for a time, with the express purpose of annihilating all our manufacturers, and ruining all our manufactories." In India and Ireland, the British imperial authorities actually outlawed the native textile industries. Like Britain, the US protected and subsidised its industries while it was a developing country, switching to free trade only in 1945, when most of its industrial competitors had been wiped out by the second world war and the US enjoyed a virtual monopoly in many manufacturing sectors.
The revival of Europe and Japan by the 1970s eliminated these monopoly profits, and the support for free trade of industrial-state voters in the American midwest and northeast declined. Today, support for free-trade globalism in the US comes chiefly from the commodity-exporting south and west and from US multinationals which have moved their factories to low-wage countries like Mexico and China. Like 19th-century Britain, 21st-century America tells countries that are trying to catch up: do what we say, not what we did."

To imply otherwise is a defamatory leftist insinuation

Ok, if you say so. The case for free trade is a moral one. How beneficial free trade is remains secondary. Free trade simply means that every citizen of every country is free to trade with any citizen of any country. The alternative to free trade is protectionism. If you oppose free trade then you endorse protectionism which is nothing more than support for government intervention. Protectionism is a form of isolation and Buchanan's idea of American First is a fortress America scheme he believes can protect us from competition in the global marketplace and, at the same time, maintain a prosperous nation. Pat, like you, must know what trade is good and bad for us and believe that people can be controlled accordingly.

I find it comical when "conservatives" here rail on the size and influence of our inefficient and corrupt government but, when it comes to trade,(and outsourcing for that matter) all of a sudden our government becomes responsible, capable and reliable. No one ever accused protectionists of being consistent.

the rival school of economic nationalism, which is more accurately labeled as "strategic economics"

Once again government becomes capable and reliable in determining which industries and products will receive protection, how much protection is needed and how long the quotas or tariffs will remain in place? Spare us from the the term strategic economics. This is nothing more than a euphemism for more government control of the economy. If you support restricting trade, where does the restriction end? Statism?

In the US in the 1790s, the brilliant first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton, laid out a programme for the industrialisation of the country by means of infant-industry protection and other policies.

Infant-industry protection is to be extolled? Once again you prove to us that you believe government officials can pick the optimal industries in which to invest scarce capital better than business people can. Do you doubt that government officials will favor industries that are politically connected or that are successful in other countries, often with some kind of prestige, which may be entirely inappropriate in the protected country? Where's the incentive for the infant industry to grow up? So much for comparative advantage.

Even John Stuart Mill, who once supported this argument, changed his mind and argued vociferously against it. Another one time supporter, Henry Sidgwick, said this about infant-industry protection:

the gain that protection might bring in particular cases is always likely to be more than counterbalanced by the general bad effects of encouraging producers and traders to look to government for aid in industrial crises and dangers, instead of relying on their own foresight, ingenuity and energy

Like Britain, the US protected and subsidised its industries while it was a developing country, switching to free trade only in 1945.

The push for free trade began in Britain in the early 19th century and was in full swing from the mid-19th century until just before WWI. Britain flourished during that time but as government took more control of the economy, by abolishing free market policies, the British empire rapidly declined. Here at home, the truth is that we have had periods of free trade and periods of protectionism. We have prospered over the years in spite of protectionism.

Since 1945, thanks in part to wanting to build the world back after WWII and in part to Smoot-Hawley, we have become a nation that embraces free trade. In that time we have have become the locomotive for the world economy and have seen our real private wealth increase from $6 trillion in 1945 to more than $54 trillion today.

Like 19th-century Britain, 21st-century America tells countries that are trying to catch up: do what we say, not what we did."

Nonsense. We understand that there is a direct correlation between the level of economic freedom a country practices and its per-capita GDP, standard of living and personal liberty. The Heritage Foundation issues an annual report that makes this point very clear. More on that here.

As shown in the Index, free countries on average have a per capita income twice that of mostly free countries; mostly free countries have a per capita income more than three times that of mostly unfree and repressed countries. (See Chart 1) This relationship exists because countries that maintain policies that promote economic freedom provide an environment that facilitates trade and encourages entrepreneurial activity, which in turn generates economic growth.

The case for free trade is a moral one.

I have always found it immoral to preach free trade, when the rest of the world does not go along, or merely gives it lip-service.

How beneficial free trade is remains secondary. Free trade simply means that every citizen of every country is free to trade with any citizen of any country.

There is no bar to them in a protectionist general revenue tariff structure. Which the supposedly "inefficient" Federal government seems to have imposed pretty damn well, since we had all those embarassing governmental surplusses.

The alternative to free trade is protectionism.

By whatever name. It is a realistic necessity to counter those who tilt the playing field, and it is a better, and more moral tax system that should be used to eliminate the unfair system of income tax, corp. and personal, and capital gains.

If you oppose free trade then you endorse protectionism which is nothing more than support for government intervention.

Fuzzy logic. Free trade is supporting government too. Even more so. Now you are supporting 50 enemy governments...and undermining our own country. H'mmm...

Protectionism is a form of isolation

Nope. Hamilton designed it, and he wasn't isolationist in the slightest degree, nor the system he implemented.

I find it comical when "conservatives" here rail on the size and influence of our inefficient and corrupt government but, when it comes to trade,(and outsourcing for that matter) all of a sudden our government becomes responsible, capable and reliable. No one ever accused protectionists of being consistent.

A'hem. See above point about the embarassing surfeit of governmental surplusses. SO actually this point turns against you..."no one every accused free traders of being consistent."

Infant-industry protection is to be extolled? Once again you prove to us that you believe government officials can pick the optimal industries in which to invest scarce capital better than business people can. Do you doubt that government officials will favor industries that are politically connected or that are successful in other countries, often with some kind of prestige, which may be entirely inappropriate in the protected country? Where's the incentive for the infant industry to grow up? So much for comparative advantage.

Don't faint. I agree these are all respectable points. What I am advocating however is a general revenue system, and don't feel we need to have the kind of more-active seed-corn stuff that some have engaged in the past. And it is primarily for shifting from a system which currently punishes American production, investment, and savings. To a system which rewards these. Not picking any winners or losers. Just restoring the word United to the United States.

The push for free trade began in Britain in the early 19th century and was in full swing from the mid-19th century until just before WWI. Britain flourished during that time but as government took more control of the economy, by abolishing free market policies, the British empire rapidly declined.

Actually, this is seriously erroneous historicism. A more accurate rendition of British trade practice history is recounted below by William R. Hawkins:

As McGill University political science professor Mark R. Brawley has argued in regard to the attempted establishment of international order, “the liberal rules [that] the leading state creates seem to diffuse economic power out of that country and into others, undermining the leader’s own position.” (Liberal Leadership: Great Powers and Their Challengers in Peace and War, Cornell University Press, 1993.) “Relative economic decline is explained through the success of the liberal leader’s capital-intensive sectors in exporting captial-intensive goods and services,” writes Brawley, as this “allows capital to be accumulated elsewhere.” This is what is happening as American (and other foreign capital) flows into China to build production capacity, which is then supported by exports that destroy the home industries of the countries where the foreign capital originated.
The decline of England has always been a favorite for this kind of analysis. As the prominent commercial lawyer and judge Lord Penzance warned in 1886, “The advance of other nations into those regions of manufacture in which we used to stand either alone or supreme, should make us alive to the possible future. Where we used to find customers, we now find rivals....prudence demands a dispassionate inquiry into the course we are pursuing, in place of a blind adhesion to a discredited theory.” The “discredited theory” to which Lord Penzance was referring is “free trade.” England had adopted this doctrine when it had a substantial lead in the Industrial Revolution and wanted to open foreign markets for its exports. But as conditions changed, its leaders clung to policies that no longer fit world affairs.
British historian D.C.M. Platt [Finance, Trade and Politics in British Foreign Policy 1815-1914, Oxford University, 1968] has argued that the leaders of Victorian England were so devoted to “free trade” that they were willing to sacrifice their direct interests to this intellectual ideal. Another British historian, Keith Robbins [The Eclipse of a Great Power: Modern Britain 1870-1975, Longman, 1983] has written, “To a few contemporaries, this devotion was perverse. It seemed obvious that the world was not following Britain’s Free Trade example. Germany introduced a measure of protection in 1879, France in 1882 and the United States in 1883 and 1900....But there was no British retaliation.”
The failure to adapt in a dynamic world is a central weakness of thinking bound by ideology; i.e., the belief that some doctrine is so perfect that it fits all times and places. Such blind faith can lead people to reject another idea they know will work, because it does not fit their misplaced “values.” For example, the Indian historian Partha Sarathi Gupta [Power, Politics and the People: Studies in British Imperialism and Indian Nationalism, Anthem Press, 2002] cites a 1915 memo from Ernest Low, secretary to the Viceroy’s commerce department, which acknowledged, “The public...have a policy [of protectionism] on the theoretical advantages of which a large section of them are unanimously agreed; which has been tried in many countries and can point to a considerable measure of success.” To head off the rising call for action, Low proposed a “committee of enquiry,” but one so rigged that “all questions relating to protection be ex hypothesi excluded....the enquiry will concern itself only with the examination of the alternative policies.” Low advised this course even as other voices were “pointing to the danger of ‘subsidised Japanese manufactures’ capturing the Indian market while Europe was at war,” according to Gupta. Low would feel right at home in the Bush administration.
World War I was too big a dose of reality for the free traders to deny. In 1917 the Imperial War Cabinet adopted a resolution calling for a system of trade preferences within the British Empire, concluding, “The time was arrived when all possible encouragement should be given to the development of imperial resources, and especially to making the Empire independent of other countries in respect of food supplies, raw materials and essential industries.” This was to be done by using tariffs to protect producers within the empire from outside competition. The new principle was first incorporated legislatively in 1919. Gupta notes, “Except for the Manchester Chamber of Commerce [long the center of the free trade movement], all other chambers of commerce seemed to think that a new international economic arrangement, not based on free trade, might become necessary.” As previously mentioned, most European nations had already abandoned their flirtation with free trade before the war.
However, after seventy years of Free Trade, England's decline had progressed too far to be easily reversed, though some improvement was made. Non-Empire imports had been cut from 22% of England's GNP in 1913 down to 10% by 1938. Yet England still found its industrial base inadequate in the face of the revived threat from Germany under Hitler. Without the support of American finance and industry, England would have found itself bankrupt and unable to further resist the Axis in 1942.
Today, the United States has no one to back it up if it falters. The Bush Administration has followed an activist foreign policy, while ignoring the deteriorating international position of the American economy upon which the nation’s power depends. It was clear from President Bush’s statements during the visit of President Hu, that the White House is still gripped by an ideology that prevents it from taking action to contain the Chinese economic threat that is shifting the balance of power in world affairs.
The proper role of “ideology” is not in limiting the means, but in setting the ends to be pursued. The proper end of U.S. international economic policy is the preservation of America as the preeminent world power, with the largest and most advanced industrial economy, supported by sound and sustainable finances. Policies are tools to be used in shaping the desired outcome. It is long past time for U.S. policymakers to return to traditional thinking on trade and foreign investment. They must limit the first and guide the second so as to maintain American advantages and limit the rise of rivals.

Since 1945, thanks in part to wanting to build the world back after WWII and in part to Smoot-Hawley, we have become a nation that embraces free trade. In that time we have have become the locomotive for the world economy and have seen our real private wealth increase from $6 trillion in 1945 to more than $54 trillion today.

We already were the main dynamo in the early 1900s. And the average American relatively very well off compared to our rivals. And, gee, seems to me we were protectionists...

I have always found it immoral to preach free trade, when the rest of the world does not go along, or merely gives it lip-service.

Sure. Can't have too much freedom. No telling what might happen. As to others and their "lip service", I'll defer to Milton Friedman:

A fourth argument, one that was made by Alexander Hamilton and continues to be repeated down to the present, is that free trade would be fine if all other countries practiced free trade but that, so long as they do not, the United States cannot afford to. This argument has no validity whatsoever, either in principle or in practice. Other countries that impose restrictions on international trade do hurt us. But they also hurt themselves. Aside from the three cases just considered, if we impose restrictions in turn, we simply add to the harm to ourselves and also harm them as well. Competition in masochism and sadism is hardly a prescription for sensible international economic policy! Far from leading to a reduction in restrictions by other countries, this kind of retaliatory action simply leads to further restrictions.

There is no bar to them in a protectionist general revenue tariff structure. Which the supposedly "inefficient" Federal government seems to have imposed pretty damn well, since we had all those embarassing governmental surplusses.

Tariffs are taxes. I think we're already taxed too much. I guess you don't agree. Funny then that you find governmental surpluses embarrassing. There is also a moral argument to be made against excessive taxation.

It is a realistic necessity to counter those who tilt the playing field,

There is no such thing as a level playing field whether it's in sports, business or relationships. It's also a fantasy to think that government is somehow capable of creating equity in a market. Not going to happen. The only real form of fair trade is free trade.

and it is a better, and more moral tax system that should be used to eliminate the unfair system of income tax, corp. and personal, and capital gains.

I'm all ears when those forms of taxation are repealed.

Fuzzy logic

Then who would you rely on to create and enforce your level playing field? Who would determine what industries and products received protection and how much? Who would force businesses to buy from sources other than the ones that represented their best interests?

Now you are supporting 50 enemy governments...and undermining our own country.

Says you. There are a lot of smart conservative people out there who believe the more entanglements our enemies have with us, the less likely it is they'll make conflict with us. If we isolate them, confrontation is much more likely. It's an opinion that differs from yours but my side has won the debate thus far.

Nope. Hamilton designed it, and he wasn't isolationist in the slightest degree, nor the system he implemented.

I was wrong. Protectionism is the same as isolationism. Frank Chodorov, intellectual and founder of Human Events, said:

Economic isolationism -- tariffs, quotas, embargoes, and general governmental interference with international trade--is an irritant that can well lead to war. To build a trade wall around a country is to invite reprisals, and generates misunderstanding and mistrust. Free trade is natural, protectionism is political.

Even T. Flynn, who was a member of The America First Committee wrote in 1944:

The last seventy years of American history have been a struggle between the ideal of free enterprise and the determination to restrain and regiment it. Business comprises the whole immense web of producing and distributing enterprises but tragically some men, for various reasons, set out to interfere in the natural workings of this immense organism.

Chodorov was a proud political isolationist who defended capitalism, including big business and corporations, celebrated the profit motive, and took a strict laissez-faire attitude toward international trade. He hated tariffs and saw protectionism as a species of socialist planning. He would be appalled with Pat Buchanan today as he attempts to pass off the meaning of "America First" as "Buy American". These conservatives were political isolationists. They were never economic isolationists.

Hamilton was wrong. He was wrong about protecting infant industries and he was wrong to think that free trade wasn't beneficial unless everyone else practiced it. Milton Friedman disagrees with him and history sides with Friedman.

See above point about the embarassing surfeit of governmental surplusses. SO actually this point turns against you.

You must be seeing things that aren't there because I'd never believe you'd argue that government is capable, reliable and responsible enough to equitably choose which industries need protecting, how much they should be protected and for how long, just because we believed in the mirage of surpluses a few years ago. Is this your only proof that the state can exercise more control over commerce without any negative consequences?

To a system which rewards these. Not picking any winners or losers. Just restoring the word United to the United States.

Don't faint, but with more details, I just might agree with you. However, I think the best thing the government can do is get the hell out of the way. We have more entrepreneurial ability than the rest of the world. If we'd eliminate more restrictions, infant industries would flourish.

Actually, this is seriously erroneous historicism.

It's not surprising that a protectionist from economicalert.org would see history in that way. That's the funny thing about history: Lots of differing perspectives. Buchanan still argues to this day that we shouldn't have entered into WWII. Allow me to offer this as a rebuttal to Hawkins:

From Bruce Bartlett:

Among the most important trade restrictions still operating at the beginning of the 19th century were the Navigation Acts and the Corn Laws. The principal Navigation Act, dating back to 1660, required English ships, manned by English sailors, to be used for most trade with England or its colonies. The Corn Laws, dating from 1670, imposed protectionist duties on the import of corn, to keep domestic corn prices high and encourage domestic production.

The free-trade campaign began in 1820 and concluded with the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 and of the Navigation Acts in 1849.19 The principle of freedom to trade was cemented by the Anglo-French Commercial Treaty of 1860.20 From then until World War I, Great Britain practiced a largely free-trade policy.

Free trade was a logical outcome of the free-market policies. As Great Britain’s economy grew, it needed more imports, especially as materials for manufacturing and food for the tables of a growing population; the country also needed markets for its products. During this period Great Britain was the world’s wealthiest and most powerful nation. Historian Paul Kennedy described the situation:

Between 1760 and 1830, the United Kingdom was responsible for around two-thirds of Europe’s industrial growth of output, and its share of world manufacturing production leaped from 1.9 to 9.5 percent; in the next thirty years, British industrial expansion pushed that figure to 19.9 percent, despite the spread of new technology to other countries in the West. Around 1860, which was probably when the country reached its zenith in relative terms, the United Kingdom produced 53 percent of the world’s iron and 50 percent of its coal and lignite, and consumed just under half of the raw cotton output of the globe. With 2 percent of the world’s population and 10 percent of Europe’s, the United Kingdom would seem to have had a capacity in modern industries equal to 40-45 percent of the world’s potential and 55-60 percent of that in Europe. . . . It alone was responsible for one-fifth of the world’s commerce, but for two-thirds of the trade in manufactured goods. Over one-third of the world’s merchant marine flew under the British flag, and that share was steadily increasing. It was no surprise that the mid-Victorians exulted at their unique state, being now . . . the trading center of the universe.21

The reversal of Great Britain’s free-trade policy began as a reaction to Germany, which imposed a protectionist tariff in 1879 under pressure from its big businesses.22 The situation soon led to adoption of protectionist measures throughout Europe.23 Although Great Britain initially resisted the protectionist trend, by the turn of the century it, too, began to adopt such measures. Joseph Chamberlain was the leading advocate of the policy of limiting free trade to the nations within the British Empire, while imposing protection against those out side.24 Lillian Knowles described the change in policy:

The period from 1886 to 1914 witnessed a great change in English policy. It is the period of abandonment of laissez-faire in colonization, commerce, industry and agriculture. Great Britain began to modify her cosmopolitan ideas of free trade and laissez-faire, and to concentrate on developing trade within the British Empire.25

In 1897, Great Britain renounced its treaties with Germany and Belgium that had prevented the country from giving preferences to its colonies. However, the major break with free trade came in 1915 when the government imposed tariffs of 33 1/3 percent on motor cars and parts, musical instruments, clocks, wristwatches, and movie film. Subsequent legislation broadened the list of items subject to protectionist tariffs.26

The abandonment of free trade during World War I coincided with the beginning of Great Britain’s economic decline. Freedom to trade had been the strongest pillar of Britain’s general free-market policy. When that pillar fell, the doorway opened to socialist measures of all kinds. British history in the 20th century is essentially one of almost continually expanding government control of the economy, and an equal decline in Great Britain’s power and influence in world affairs.27

And the average American relatively very well off compared to our rivals. And, gee, seems to me we were protectionists...

The good ol' days of 1900? How many people were still working on farms then? As I said earlier, our history is a variety of free(r) trade and protectionism. Our own FReeper. LS, in his book A Patriot's History of the United States said this about McKinley:

In the House, McKinley fought tenaciously for the protective tariff, opposing the "tariff for revenue only" crowd. The Major was convinced that tariffs protected laborers, and brought prosperity for all. Only after he had won the presidency, and had to deal with the reciprocity of trade, with Canada, did McKinley begin to appreciate the value of free and open trade.

On TR, LS has this to say:

TR had abandoned antibusiness inclinations in his second term. For example, he had slowly gravitated more toward free trade when it came to the tariff. During McKinley's short second term, the Major had drifted toward and appreciation for lower tariff duties, speaking in favor of reciprocity, whereby the United States reduce rates on certain imported goods if foreign countries would do the same on American imports. Roosevelt saw the the logic in lower tariffs, especially after the 1902 Dingley Tariff provoked foreign responses in the form of higher rates on all American goods. One industry at a time, former advocates of high duties saw the light and swung behind lower tariffs. Iron, steel, foodstuffs, manufactured items - all were represented by important lobbies that gradually started to argue on behalf of lower duties.

Let's go back to Bartlett for a moment:

They further argued that high tariffs were needed to reduce the Treasury’s surplus

Protectionist tariffs remained the bedrock of economic policy of the Republican Party for the next 20 years. Indeed, Republicans were so intent on passing the Payne-Aldrich tariff in 1909 that President William Howard Taft supported the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution creating a federal income tax as the political price for Democratic support of the tariff.35 That has to have been one of the worst deals in history -- a lose-lose situation if ever there was one.

Yeah, that protectionism sure helped future generations. Those sure were good old days! LOL

Since Reagan first took office as president, we have increased our real personal net worth in this country by $32 trillion. This is more than the previous 200 years combined. We did this and still won the cold war. Increasing trade with the rest of the world by lowering barriers to trade had a great deal to do with it. The right side is still winning the debate but the demagoguery has reached new heights so the momentum will change. I have only a slight fear of this because I know the resulting trade war protectionist policies will create will provide a much needed wake up call to those who have forgotten what history has taught us.

Like Dick Armey said: Demagoguery beats data.

There are a lot of smart conservative people out there who believe the more entanglements our enemies have with us, the less likely it is they'll make conflict with us.

Not real conservatives. Mostly happy-talkers like Thomas Friedman of the NYT, and Thomas PM Barnett. I think they expose themselves as simply foolish with any such contentions. China, as just one case, totally refutes them and their thesis. I.e.,

If we isolate them, confrontation is much more likely.

Not if they are isolated fast enough before they get too big. They can be deterred. But frankly, once they get big enough, there is no stopping that "confrontation" you fear from happening...at their timing and direction. And it won't go well for us.

It's an opinion that differs from yours but my side has won the debate thus far.

No. You've lost the debate. Just not the President's ear. The same guy who routinely practices defamation and mislabeling, and accuses true conservatives of being bigots, and isolationists. Every single time he opens his yap to defame conservatives, I am going to bust him and his fellow-travellers. No holds barred. This innate tendancy of his, when he can't beat an argument intellectually, he simply engages in slanderous ad hominems is simply detestable. And won't be tolerated by the Conservative Movement. We have abandoned him in droves. Hence the political and intellectual collapse of this administration.

I'm all ears when those forms of taxation are repealed.

Good. We should repeal the 16th Amendment (thus knocking out the State Income taxes as well), and switch to the consumption based approach I urged: Tariffs and a national sales tax. This frees the productive sector from the burdens, which is a key factor in supply side economics totally ignored by the current administration (but wasn't under Reagan) and the only "winners and losers" the Government picks is US Production (Wins) and Foreign Production (loses). As far as punitive tailoring being implemented by Congress, I don't think you have a serious argument...foreign countries barriers to our trade can be quanitified...and matched. This is Not rocket science. And we successfully did it before with Congress, so there is clearly precedent.