Robert Lighthizer has written an op-ed in the New York Times arguing that McCain's free trade rhetoric isn't really Republican, because past Republican presidents have been protectionists:
The first significant Republican free trader was President Dwight Eisenhower. But Harry Truman tried to recruit him to run for the White House as a Democrat, and his political affiliation was not clear until he actually began running for the 1952 Republican nomination. Conservatives in 1952 supported the presidential bid of Robert Taft, a steadfast opponent of free trade.If you watched the Republican presidential debates — and had no other knowledge of economic history — you might believe that Ronald Reagan, the personification of modern conservatism, was a pure free trader. During a debate in Michigan, for example, Mr. McCain said that President Reagan “must be spinning in his grave” to hear Republicans expressing concerns about free trade. But while free traders like to quote some of President Reagan’s open-markets rhetoric, they did not like many of his actual trade policies.
President Reagan often broke with free-trade dogma. He arranged for voluntary restraint agreements to limit imports of automobiles and steel (an industry whose interests, by the way, I have represented). He provided temporary import relief for Harley-Davidson. He limited imports of sugar and textiles. His administration pushed for the “Plaza accord” of 1985, an agreement that made Japanese imports more expensive by raising the value of the yen.
This is as ridiculous as the attempts to slander the Democratic party by noting that it was the party that opposed reconstruction. Yes, Republicans used to be the party of the industrial north, and as such, in favor of high tariffs--but that ended fifty years ago. And noting that Republicans occasionally cave to protectionist pressure is not the same thing as saying that they're against freer trade.
While there are free traders in each party, and protectionists in both, on net the Democrats are now the more protectionist party, because a huge portion of their base is the unions and the Rust Belt. George Bush has not been perfect on trade, but he's been actually quite good within the limits imposed by popular sentiment and political need--yes, steel tariffs and all. His father was the one who did most of the heavy lifting on the transformation of GATT into the WTO. McCain is not substantially breaking with that legacy.
Update Egregious misspelling of Mr Lighthizer's name corrected; that's what I get for blogging before my morning coffee. Meanwhile, Daniel Drezner has more.
" ...on net the Democrats are now the more protectionist party..."
Any proof? Statistics? Bills? Laws? Or just an assertion?
And frankly, I don't think anyone is actually free trade. If you support any kind of immigration restirctions, you are not for full free trade. Trade cannot be free until restrictions are lifted on labor as they have been on capital. Large multinationals move factories across borders more easily than immigrants can, in many cases, move to another country for work.
Might as well go ahead (Fast Track) as the Bushells of xxxx call it with the "free" trade thing. Afterall what is left to protect now, your job, Walmart jobs?
It is done, and we are done, finished, kaput.
I'm become of a mixed mind on free trade. I think a free trade policy is better only if you ignore the political dimension, but that's simply not realistic. Free trade will have some losers, and the political process is going to have to account for them.
If we're going to do something for the people who would be hurt by free trade - and political realities demand that we will - I'd rather subsidize jobs via tariffs, quotas and other protectionist measures than provide extended unemployment, government retraining and other benefits of dubious utility.
Fundamentally, I'd rather pay more for stuff and in the process provide jobs for my fellow citizens than pay more in taxes to provide benefits for people who are unemployed. I don't think it's reasonable to assume every low-skilled worker can be retrained into a high skilled job and I'd rather subsidize a domestic manufacturing base than fund a Chinese manufacturing base.
Matt McIver,
If you're looking for evidence, citations, or statistics, you came to the wrong blog.
This is as ridiculous ...
as all attempts to change McArdle's mind by using facts and evidence, in this case facts demonstrating that that what people do is often not what they say.
If you're looking for evidence, citations, or statistics, you came to the wrong blog.
...cuz RICKM is here, and he aint' going to provide any!
In 1998, House Democrats voted 170-29 against giving Bill Clinton fast-track authority. Republicans voted 151-71 in favor.
Does that count as a fact?
Yes -- matt is right.
Show us the democratic protectionist legislation.
I see plenty of republican protectionism ranging from the smooth-harley tariff to the bush tariff on steel.
Where are the democratic actions?
It does not exist.
As usual, you give too much credit to the right-wing spin machine.
Paul Zrimsek:
Yes. You get props for it. The one thing I'd caution against is thinking that they'd still vote the same way today. Do you know the numbers of the Peru trade deal that just passed recently(the one Obama voted for in the Senate)?
"Democrats are now the more protectionist party, because a huge portion of their base is the unions and the Rust Belt."
Idiotic statement. In 2002 G.W. Bush instituted steel quotas, something Clinton had refused to do on principle and something Bush signed into law to pick up Rust-belt votes in the 2002 election.
Ever hear of farm subsidies, which benefit red states like Kansas? Republicans love farm subsidies. There are still quotas on textiles. What states do these benefit?
Actually Clinton did in fact initiate steel tariffs when he first took office that were higher than the ones Bush imposed. Moreover Clinton signed into law the “Byrd Amendment” which renewed the President’s authority to impose such tariffs whereas when it came up for renewal during the Bush administration, he sent Vice President Cheney to the Senate to break the tie by voting against it.
Which is why the last two Farm Bills were created with a Democrat-controlled Senate whereas when Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress, they passed Freedom to Farm which phased out such subsidies.
I didn't know the vote on the Peru deal off the top of my head, but I looked it up and wasn't too surprised.
If we're going to do something for the people who would be hurt by free trade - and political realities demand that we will - I'd rather subsidize jobs via tariffs, quotas and other protectionist measures than provide extended unemployment, government retraining and other benefits of dubious utility.
SG - Have you considered subsidising jobs by subsidising employment? It would seem a lot simpler than subsidising jobs by taxing something else.
I think that most people who like tariffs do so because they think that most of the cost falls on foreigners.
"Which is why the last two Farm Bills were created with a Democrat-controlled Senate whereas when Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress, they passed Freedom to Farm which phased out such subsidies."
1996 was when the "Freedom to Farm act" was passed, but it actually increased subsidies over the five year bill that was already in place.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0208d.asp
Even with this when farmers hit hard times in 1998 they were given even more handouts. The federal government has not made a reasonable attempt to stop farm subsidies. This isn't just Democrats or Republicans, but both who feel that being against farm subsidies is a political loser in elections.
Any chance you could spell his last name correctly?
I'm used to people mispronouncing it all the time but this is the first time I've seen someone misspell it after reading it.
At any moment now, RICKM, spencer, and the rest of the Sneer Posse will issue a gracious concession that their demands were met.
Any moment now.
Not sure if it has been mentioned previously, but if you want evidence of the Democrats' current attitude toward trade, see Pelosi's hugely counter-productive posturing over the Columbia FTA.
Fascinating comments.
Megan is, of course, totally correct in both her history and preference for free trade.
Seriously people, free trade is Econ 101 stuff.
When I hear hear lefties bash free trade I get the same embarrassed feeling I get when I hear people on the right disavow evolution. I always feel bad for people when they loudly proclaim their ignorance.
A reasonable left wing position on trade is to be for free trade, but support greater taxation and redistribution of the resulting gains in trade.
Free trade increases overall social welfare. This is simple a fact. Being opposed to free trade is both ignorant and immoral.
I'm surprised so many reactionary left-wingers read this blog. There is no reasonable anti-free trade position, except short term tactics to account for the ignorance of the public and out-sized political influence of rent-seekers.
Econ 101 really should be mandatory at both the high school and college level. Our education system is failing us.
It's silly to argue whether Democrats are for or against free trade. Democrats talk about "fair" trade but that's just PolSpek for restricting imports to protect unions. Labor unions are against free trade - ie. imports; Labor writes Large Checks to the Democrat Party instead of the Republican Party which tells you right there that Democrats are against free trade.
SMOOTH-HARLEY tariff? 12:42.
Dude.
It don't get no better than that right there.
Oh Yes -- the 87-17 vote in favor of the Peru trade agreement is a clear demonstration of how the democrats are anti-free trade.
I'm still waiting for someone to show a single piece of democratic anti-free trade legislation.
I guess I should apologize-- for thinking I could take a libertarian seriously.
It is like reading Ayn Ryan-- something every 15 year old should do, but no adult should take seriously.
Spencer, the point is that all of the "no" votes were Democrats. Democrats also very nearly killed CAFTA. And made trouble about the WTO, though some Republicans did as well. But there just isn't any serious disagreement about anyone who follows the subject at all closely that the Democrats are the much more heavily protectionist party.
I was wrong.
It does get better.
Now "Ayn Ryan" is going to ride off on her "smooth harley."
Keep it up, Spencer. World's a-watchin, bubba.
"If you support any kind of immigration restirctions, you are not for full free trade. "
Or, you might find that "full free trade" is an ideological position, and that other concerns - which may well have economic ramifications - may need to play some role.
As Thomas Sowell (no slacker he on free trade) put it: "A country not only has to have workers, it has to have citizens. I think that economists in particular tend to think in terms of purely economic factors.
"They're willing to let in people who in fact may be hostile to the whole society and culture of the country.
"And of course, Europe has gotten itself into an enormous mess with the guest workers that they have, many of whom are precisely of that sort."
I forgot who argued it, but someone pointed out once that we would be better off bringing in immigrants from countries further from the U.S. than Mexico.
The rational was that people who came from further away endured greater costs to get here, and therefore would be more willing to assimilate. After all, tough as it is to hitch and step across the Mojave, it is immeasurably more difficult to breaststroke from New Delhi.
Balkanization has its own costs. And those costs might be largely antithetical to the aims and identity of full free trade. (Also, take note: Balkanization is probably going to happen faster if the majority of immigrants are coming from one source -- it allows them the infrastructure to both keep their identity and argue for claims on the "adopted" territory.)
Socialism has its costs, also. Don't know if you noticed, but Latin America has a crack-like addiction to Socialism. No matter how rotten it turns out, some country, some where in Latin America, will in any 5 years decide it's a great idea to give it the ol' college try.
Mexico, one of the oldest democracies in the world, had a single party for a longer period than the Soviet Union, who used to shoot people or condemn them to the frozen wastes for starting competing political parties.
Mull that over a while. Consider the mindset of the majority of participating voters required to freely choose that sort of arrangement. And ask yourself how long the not-quite-full free trade we have here will last if you import an additional 10 or so percent of the working population whose own beliefs are antithetical to free trade.
It's one thing to open up trade with Socialist countries, it's another to allow its members to convert yours into a Socialist country by means of the ballot box.
It almost sounds as if you're approaching free trade from a Rousseauian point of view. That free trade would exist if only our government didn't stop it. When actually, free trade has probably never truly existed even among the noble savages; its simulacrum exist only when and for how long we are able to sustain them.
Matt,
What sort of evidence would you require of me if I were to make the "assertion" that you have a nose in the middle of your face?
As to immigration vis-a-vis free trade, free trade refers to a policy with respect to the transnational movement of goods. Immigration refers to the transnational movement of people. People are not goods. This point was settled by that little unpleasantness we had back in 1861-5.
Always glad to help.
MM: "Spencer, the point is that all of the "no" votes were Democrats. ..."
Nitpick: one of the 'no' voters was Bernie Sanders. Even so, by my count the number of Dems voting 'no' in the Senate exceeded the number of Reps voting 'no' in the House.
OK. For those looking for statistics, here's an interesting one. The U.S. economy lost 11 percent of its manufacturing work force 1995-2002. What happened to China's manufacturing work force during this same period of time? It declined by 15 percent. Counter-intuitive, huh? What this statistic highlights is the worldwide industrial transformation (including China and India) now underway, similar to what happened in agriculture during the 20th century. The more protectionist measures are used to obstruct this process, the longer it will take, slowing down productivity and wage gains throughout the broader economy. In certain isolated cases, direct, transparent assistance to smooth the transition may be advisable, but the transformation must be allowed to proceed for the well-being of the majority of the population. As an IMF study on deindustrialization recently put it "deindustrialization is primarily a feature of successful economic development and ... North-South trade has very little to do with it." A more open trading regime tends to facilitate this transformation.
Good points in this article. I remember the rhetoric in the 1980's over the trade imbalance with Japan. Most of it was just rhetoric. The government tried to promote "Buy American" but it didn't do much to slow the importation of Japanese steel and cars.
I really appreciate what you wrote about the Democrats being the party of the Rust Belt and the unions. It's true. But even the Democrats are smart enough not to believe their own rhetoric. They may pass some extensions to unemployment, and they may put a little more money into job retraining. But for the most part globalization and outsourcing are here to stay. Manufacturing in the US is not going to recover. And Americans are not going to stop buying cheap imported goods until Americans run out of money and credit.