McCain Stands Up for Free Trade
Posted:
03/11/08
I've had my beefs with John McCain. I've reluctantly come into line behind him, only by considering the alternative in Iraq and the War on Terror. But now I'm seeing another redeeming virtue: a willingness to stand up for free trade.
Free trade is one place where I have drawn a line in the sand since I was very young. There is only one correct answer, and everyone who knows anything knows what it is. NAFTA was, without a doubt, the crowning achievement of the Clinton years, and it's sad how many pols are willing to pander on trade restrictions to secure the votes of the ignorant and fearful, instead of helping educate them.
Trade protectionism is both ethically and economically backward.
It is ethically backward because it closes out opportunities to trading partners in developing nations, locking them out of the prosperity we all expect at our end. Opposing free trade is in a very real sense racist: it takes from "brown people" to give to "white people."
It is economically backward because it embraces the "fixed pie" fallacy, the notion that any wealth on their end is wealth taken from our end. If there is one principle that you learn in Economics 101, it's this: the pie is dynamic, not static. You don't need to make another poorer to make yourself wealthier. And yet this is the one principle that craven politicians -- in this case Hillary and Obama -- simply will not teach.
They know it. Hillary knows it because she lived through the NAFTA fight. She watched St. Al Gore wipe the floor with Ross Perot on free trade. She watched her husband go all out to defend it. But now she cowers. Obama knows it. That was the substance of his aide's infamous equivocation. This is just red meat for the dogs, he essentially told the Canadians. Don't think he's serious about it. Well, he isn't. But his rhetoric is locking him into blind alleys. Maybe he won't pull us out of NAFTA, but do you think we'll be expanding trade zones on his watch?
This brings us back to McCain. For all of my beefs with the man, what a refreshing thing to hear a man running for president in shaky economic times insisting that we not revisit the brain-dead logic of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Act.
McCain was apparently pretty upset about it all. Here's what the AP reported about his comments:
"If that threat is made, McCain asked, "What are the other countries in the world going to think about the agreements we've negotiated with them?"%emph_on(type:bold;%) %emph_off(%)"
Like he said.
Free trade is one place where I have drawn a line in the sand since I was very young. There is only one correct answer, and everyone who knows anything knows what it is. NAFTA was, without a doubt, the crowning achievement of the Clinton years, and it's sad how many pols are willing to pander on trade restrictions to secure the votes of the ignorant and fearful, instead of helping educate them.
Trade protectionism is both ethically and economically backward.
It is ethically backward because it closes out opportunities to trading partners in developing nations, locking them out of the prosperity we all expect at our end. Opposing free trade is in a very real sense racist: it takes from "brown people" to give to "white people."
It is economically backward because it embraces the "fixed pie" fallacy, the notion that any wealth on their end is wealth taken from our end. If there is one principle that you learn in Economics 101, it's this: the pie is dynamic, not static. You don't need to make another poorer to make yourself wealthier. And yet this is the one principle that craven politicians -- in this case Hillary and Obama -- simply will not teach.
They know it. Hillary knows it because she lived through the NAFTA fight. She watched St. Al Gore wipe the floor with Ross Perot on free trade. She watched her husband go all out to defend it. But now she cowers. Obama knows it. That was the substance of his aide's infamous equivocation. This is just red meat for the dogs, he essentially told the Canadians. Don't think he's serious about it. Well, he isn't. But his rhetoric is locking him into blind alleys. Maybe he won't pull us out of NAFTA, but do you think we'll be expanding trade zones on his watch?
This brings us back to McCain. For all of my beefs with the man, what a refreshing thing to hear a man running for president in shaky economic times insisting that we not revisit the brain-dead logic of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Act.
McCain was apparently pretty upset about it all. Here's what the AP reported about his comments:
"If that threat is made, McCain asked, "What are the other countries in the world going to think about the agreements we've negotiated with them?"%emph_on(type:bold;%) %emph_off(%)"
Like he said.