Replies

Are you saying this is not happening? Or is it forbidden for conservatives to have such ideas? It shouldn't be a republican or democrat issue, as it affects all of us. It's a matter of being sensible.

What I am saying is that it is inevitable that low value added jobs will be exported to the extent exportable. That has been happening for about 50 years now, and real per capita incomes in the US go up about 1.5% anually not despite that, but in part, because of that. I would also point out that the US has become number one again in real per capita income on this planet, and is pulling away from the competition. That is because the things the US does well, it does extremely well (e.g. in the production of ideas, design, entertainment, finance, etc.) If we insisted on doing all those low value added jobs ourselves, our real standard of living would decline. It is the law of comparative economic advantage. And the idea that the US, or any nation except North Korea and Cuba, can be an economic autarky isn't doable in the information age even if a nutter like Pat Buchanan actually assumed power prior to assuming room temperature.

Or is it forbidden for conservatives to have such ideas?

Protectionism of any kind has never been a conservative position. Historically conservatism has been free market, free trade, pro-business, and anti-union. The confusion seems to be traced back to the "Regan democrats" and the populist influence of the Buchanan faction of the conservative movement. The term "neo-con" is more applicable to this group than to any other. The common thread that binds is mostly on the "cultural" side of the fiscal/cultural conservative equation. Prior to Reagan, most of those holding PJB's views were staunch Democrats but their strongly held social values forced them into the GOP big tent and they brought their fiscal populism with them. It is an uneasy alliance.