Lots of other people have already weighed in here. Like it or not, this is a key part of Rick Santorum’s appeal to conservative blue collar voters. It's more appealing to the “rustbelt” states of the upper Midwest — states that we absolutely **MUST** win in order to win the general election — but it also could be refitted to appeal to Southerners who are upset about the loss of the textile mills and similar industry that first moved out of the Midwest to the South before moving overseas.
Now Yam, whether you like it or not, there is a conservative argument for being “America First.” I do not believe the federal government belongs in the business of selecting winners or losers in the economy when it comes to choices between American companies, but from a conservative perspective, just exactly what is wrong with saying we need a certain minimum amount of manufacturing capability in the United States for national defense purposes? Just exactly what is wrong with specifying that the federal government will give preference to bidders based in the United States?
The federal government has no business telling Americans what to buy or who to buy it from. As a native Michigander, I refuse to buy a foreign-brand car, and I choose to buy American-made products when I can, even if they're more expensive. The federal government should not be making that choice for me, but it certainly has every right to make that choice in its own purchasing decisions, and in setting tax policy and tariff policy to avoid the complete destruction of our manufacturing capacity.
Don't get me wrong — I really do understand the view of George Bush and his friends that capitalist democracies build roads and infrastructure, not bombs. Bush and his allies made a deliberate decision to try to enable the capitalist-minded people in China in the hope they will prevail in their own country's internal politics.
Unfortunately, what that has generated is not democracy but a fascist or Prussian-style militarized market economy. Read articles like this in the New York Times and ask if that's the country we want controlling our ability to manufacture key items we need for our economy:
Why China’s Political Model Is Superior
By Eric X. Li
Published: February 16, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/opinion/why-chinas-political-model-is-superior.html?_r=1
Notice I did **NOT** say I oppose trade with China. I believe trading with China is a good thing and needs to continue. I do, however, believe we have an important national security issue if we completely export all of our manufacturing capability overseas. To argue that free trade ends wars is simply naive, speaking both historically and pragmatically, because some people simply will not view their self-interest in purely economic terms.
We have no peer-level military competitor on the world stage right now. If we have one in the future, it is most likely to be China. We can hope that China will become a capitalist and democratic economic rival, as Japan has become, and if that happens I'll be very happy.
If it doesn't happen, our current policy on exporting our manufacturing capacity is heading us down a road that leads to a very bad end.
There is no conservative argument for protectionism. If there were, someone would have stated it on this thread already.
...from a conservative perspective, just exactly what is wrong with saying we need a certain minimum amount of manufacturing capability in the United States for national defense purposes?
If you can state rationally why this is so and what the percentage is then do so. If you can't then there's your answer.
Just exactly what is wrong with specifying that the federal government will give preference to bidders based in the United States?
We are not discussing federal purchasing. We are discussing federal subsidies to certain American companies regardless of who buys their products. The fact that you can't follow the discussion should tell you something important.