Posted on 04/15/2005 6:38:06 AM PDT by LowCountryJoe
“Xenophobia and Politics”—the headline got my attention. And the subhead convinced me I would get honorable mention: “Why Protectionism is a Lot Like Racism.”
I was not mistaken. But the main target of Steven Landsburg’s “On My Mind” column in Forbes magazine was the neo-racist ideas he had ferreted out—on John Kerry’s website.
Kerry had proposed, “Federal contracts, wherever possible, should be performed by American workers.” Landsburg was morally offended that anyone would argue that American workers should be given preference over Asian or African workers.
“It’s not just Kerry,” wrote the professor from the University of Rochester. “Both major parties (and most of the minor ones) are infested with protectionist fellow travelers who would discriminate on the basis of national origin no less virulently than David Duke or any other overt racist would discriminate on the basis of skin color. But if racism is morally repugnant—and it is—then so is xenophobia…”
Declares Landsburg: “I hold this truth to be self-evident: It is just plain ugly to care more about total strangers in Detroit than about total strangers in Juarez. ... Even if Kerry-style (or Nader-style or Buchanan-style) protectionism could improve Americans’ well-being at the expense of foreigners, it would still be wrong.”
Now I do not know what parents pay to send their kids to the University of Rochester. But if the philosophical imbecility of Landsburg is representative of the faculty, it is too much.
To be more concerned about the well-being of one’s fellow Americans is not “xenophobia,” which means a fear or hatred or foreigners. It is patriotism, which entails a special love for one’s own country and countrymen, not a hatred of any other country or people. Preferring Americans no more means hating other peoples than preferring one’s family means hating all other families. An icy indifference as to whether one’s countrymen are winning—be it in a competition for jobs or Olympic medals—is moral treason and the mark of a dead soul.
We are all born into families, clans, tribes, neighborhoods, countries, all of which—as well as the friends we make, the schools that nurture us, the churches at which we worship—have a claim upon our love and loyalty.
But the professor equates “Buy American” and “Hire Americans” programs with aggressive war. “After all, if it’s okay to enrich ourselves by denying foreigners the right to earn a living, why not enrich ourselves by invading peaceful countries and seizing their assets. ... Stealing assets is wrong, and so is stealing the right to earn a living, no matter where the victim was born.”
The professor’s piece testifies to another truth. Free-trade fanatics are running out of statistical proofs so fast they must defend their position on the grounds that, no matter if it fails America, it is a morally superior position. For look at what a soaring dependency on imports is doing to our country.
Last year’s trade deficit topped $617 billion. In January, it hit $58.3 billion, portending a deficit in 2005 of $700 billion. U.S. trade and budget deficits combined are 10 percent of GDP. We are borrowing $2 billion a day abroad to subsidize our lifestyle. The American consumer has never been more indebted—in credit cards, auto loans, mortgages.
The dollar has lost a third of its value against the euro in three years. Gold is back close to $450 an ounce, a run-up of 70 percent. Oil is bumping up against $55 a barrel. When South Korea and then Japan’s Koizumi hinted their treasuries might diversify reserves and hold a lesser share in dollars, the Dow experienced what pilots call, as you grab the arm rests and hold on for dear life, “a little choppiness.” The last fruits of free-trade globalism may be financial collapse.
Under Bush, 2.8 million manufacturing jobs, one in six, have been lost. Real wages of working Americans are stagnant. Two-thirds of a million textile and apparel workers face wipeout from Chinese imports that are now unrestricted. As Paul Craig Roberts writes, the jobs being created pay less and demand less in education and training than the jobs being outsourced. Our workers are being sacrificed on the altar of globalism. Says Landsburg: tough luck!
If economics professors are so fanatic about free trade, why not eliminate their tenure and import English-speaking economics professors from India at half the pay? For as Landsburg instructs us, “It is plain ugly to care more” about him than a total stranger.
Moreover, the stranger might come to love America and even prefer America, which some deracinated academics find so racist a sentiment.
You haven't violated the rules on this thread...yet.
Because I agreed with it. Do you agree with Steven Landsburg when he says:
“Both major parties (and most of the minor ones) are infested with protectionist fellow travelers who would discriminate on the basis of national origin no less virulently than David Duke or any other overt racist would discriminate on the basis of skin color. But if racism is morally repugnant—and it is—then so is xenophobia…”
Declares Landsburg: “I hold this truth to be self-evident: It is just plain ugly to care more about total strangers in Detroit than about total strangers in Juarez. ... Even if Kerry-style (or Nader-style or Buchanan-style) protectionism could improve Americans’ well-being at the expense of foreigners, it would still be wrong.”
The classic ripple effect that free traders rarely concern themselves with. Now, there is an oversupply of people in the already overcrowded, lower paying service sector all chasing the same business.
ping
Because I agreed with it. Do you agree with Steven Landsburg when he says:“Both major parties (and most of the minor ones) are infested with protectionist fellow travelers who would discriminate on the basis of national origin no less virulently than David Duke or any other overt racist would discriminate on the basis of skin color. But if racism is morally repugnant—and it is—then so is xenophobia…”
Declares Landsburg: “I hold this truth to be self-evident: It is just plain ugly to care more about total strangers in Detroit than about total strangers in Juarez. ... Even if Kerry-style (or Nader-style or Buchanan-style) protectionism could improve Americans’ well-being at the expense of foreigners, it would still be wrong.”
No, I don't like what he wrote, it went way too far and over the top. Did you see post #1 (everything that was posted there)? I'll go that far, though. Did you happen to read post #4 and click on the link? Here's what else Landsburg had to write when he wasn't gunning for 'shock value' in his piece (this was the portion that Buchanan deliberately omitted from his editorial by use of the ellipses - which you've quoted in the last paragraph of your post):
"...Of course we care most about the people closest to us - our families more than our friends and our friends more than our acquaintances. But once you start talking about total strangers, they all ought to be on pretty much the same footing. You could say you care more about white strangers than black strangers because you've got more in common with whites. Does that make it okay to punish firms for hiring blacks? [I've also got problems with the way Landsburg continues to race bait here, in this last sentence]It's also worth mentioning that laws intended to "protect" Americans raise the price of goods that Americans buy. I won't dwell on this because it's already obvious to anyone with a dollop of economic literacy. Besides, it's tangential to my main point, which is this:..."
But now I have some questions for you:
Why did Buchanan gloss over the stuff in Landsburg's piece that actually had merit?
Why are the economic policies - regarding trade - identical in the Kerry (and many other prominent Democrats) and the Buchanan camp?
How do you read the table found in post number one and then walk away still defending your position of protectionism when trade, though counter intuitive but not really if you gave it some thought on why it works domestically, makes us better off and offers maximum growth?
I did score in the top .5% on the GRE, if that means anything
Let's hope so!
I didn't understand any of that reply. Look at the table and information posted in #1 and make a comment to refute what you see - one the make sense please!
First off, the British creep who wrote that obviously believes looking after the interests of one's country over allowing others their way with it is somehow immoral. That he equates protectionism with racism brands him as a liberal and a "fellow traveler" himself, plying the classic tactics espoused by radical icon and hero-to-Hillary Saul Alinsky ("Apply the enemy's labels for us back to them to encourage a breakdown in their ranks.") Patent BS bought by too many indoctrinated in our public school systems and enthralled by the legions of socialists who find refuge there while holding trusted positions as teachers. Yup; England's open arms policy is really working out well for them (NOT).
Pat Buchanan is right on target around 90% of the time (IMO) - right far more often than his detractors who whoop and holler over his every error. None will acknowledge that he reversed his position on Israel after noting it is a necessary bastion of defense against the growing evil of Islamic fanaticism. I believe the garbage going down because of NewsWeak's faux paux (or was it?) illustrates just how peace-loving that cult is.
I have no training in economics, LCJ, but can see that our government has taken out one mortgage after another on the strength of America's potential. While doing this our government representatives have sat by while the true sources of our value and sustainment have been given up one Financial Quarter at a time by their primary contributors for the sake of short-term profits or the illusion of it. They don't care that we citizens will be left holding the (empty) bag so long as they get their cut while holding escape hatch tickets. Traitors in every sense of the word.
Gosh, don't you regret asking me for my two centavos? That's what I tape on those RNC fundraising letters. It's a growing phenomenon.
Seriously, if you're befuddled by contrary information you have to acknowledge that one or more of your sources are lying to you. The report you posted was rife with point something percentages in fields where other countries had real gains. One also has to look at how each succeeding administration rewrites the very means of measurement to suit their purposes. My investment statements have adopted these government tactics so thoroughly that I have to read the damned things three or four times to discern if they've taken a loss. Add the fanatical Free Trade religion to the mix and you'll see we're in a whole heap of trouble.
Just my opinion, of course. That and 75 cents might get you a cup of coffee. Fare well and trust your gut.
Because of your "matter of fact-like" comments in the other thread. I am, in all seriousness, trying to point things out to you that you may find useful that will either change your mind or give you an extra insight on which to evaluate Lou Dobbs when you decide to watch him on CNN...apparently you want no part of the "other side's" argument.
Fare well and trust your gut.
I only "trust my gut" these days because I am properly educated in this subject. The empirical evidence is favorable to my position. You may say farewell to me but if I see you around and you repeat things that I don't agree with - things that you admittedly have no credentials in, I'll "be there" to bug you about it.
In response to the article(s) you posted (not Buchanan's but the Cato Institute one) it argues that higher deficits are a (perhaps unavoidable) symptom of economic growth. It also admits that it is not looking at the long-term effects of a continually sustained deficit, merely noting the short-term reciprocal effects.
If you believe that a mounting deficit is critical to economic growth knock yourself out. I'll blithely manage to live on believing that the nose doesn't follow the horse.
See, I think it proves Ricardo's comparative advantage. In fact, it shows how we benefit but it does not show how they (our foreign trade partners) are benefiting (even though that's all the protectionist lobby, here on FR, will clamor and go on and on over). But here's the rub, if the trade is voluntary then by definition someone is trading one thing of value that they own for something of value that some else owns...the transaction leaves but parties better off otherwise the deal doesn't happen. In the aggregate, all of these transaction make for a win-win situation. Of course there are the costs - they giving up something of value in order to get it. In reality, it's the displaced worker that really is such a detestable proposition that the protectionist cannot handle it, even though in the long run, the creative destructive process must be carried out for vital growth. If you do not see these things then you are choosing to be ignorant.
This professor sounds like a real doofus. I bet he couldn't name a single country that isn't protectionist and xenophobic to a certain extent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.