By Jonah Goldberg
Thursday, April 08, 2016
For years, supporters of free trade have been trying to
reach a bipartisan consensus on the issue. They’ve finally succeeded. Free
trade is now unpopular in both parties.
Perhaps because I am a conservative, I can at least
understand where most conservatives are coming from in their opposition to free
trade. Overt displays of nationalism and patriotism (which are not the same
thing, by the way) are not merely tolerated on the right, they’re often
celebrated. Conservative intellectuals openly extol American exceptionalism,
while liberal intellectuals tend to deride the notion. Virtually no Republican
politician agonizes over wearing a U.S. flag pin.
Meanwhile, the Left adores cosmopolitanism, the United
Nations, and what some people call “transnational progressivism” or
“one-worldism.” Conservatives tend to scoff at all of the above, preferring
national sovereignty and the American Way.
Of course, this stuff can go too far. That “freedom
fries” business was silly.
Beyond a sincere misunderstanding about how trade works,
the emotional case against free trade on the right boils down to “America
first.” That phrase has rich historical (and bipartisan) connotations, but
let’s leave all that aside. According to the protectionists, free trade is bad
for American workers and some American businesses. America should come first.
So we should do whatever is necessary to prevent bad things from happening to
Americans. If doing so is bad for non-Americans, that’s not our problem.
I think the math on all this is wrong. Free trade is good
for most American workers and all American consumers, not just the “1 percent.”
Indeed, it is largely thanks to trade that the average American worker is in
the top 1 percent of earners in the world.
The protectionists are also wrong philosophically.
Countries don’t trade with others countries; businesses and consumers transact
with other businesses and consumers. Protectionism is corporate welfare by
other means.
But the point is, I get where conservatives are coming
from.
I’m more perplexed about where liberals — and in Bernie
Sanders’s case, socialists — are coming from. Last I checked, liberals
considered themselves “citizens of the world.” Barack Obama’s famous campaign
speech in Berlin (which was better in the original Esperanto) was all about the
need to tear down the walls between nations. For the last decade, liberals in
the Democratic party and the media have invested enormous amounts of time and
energy arguing that American citizenship is almost a technicality. The very
term “illegal immigrant” is forbidden by most newspaper style guides.
Sanders says that he believes in “fair trade.” What he
means is that we can’t be expected to do business with countries that pay their
workers a lot less than we pay our workers. He suggested to the New York Daily News this week that we
should have free trade only with countries that have the same wages and
environmental policies as us, which is another way of saying we shouldn’t trade
with poor countries.
In practical terms, Sanders wants to keep billions of
(non-white) people poor — very poor. If America were a flea market, his policy
would be akin to saying, “Poor people of color cannot sell their wares here,
even if customers want to buy them.”
International trade, led by the United States, has
resulted in the largest, fastest decrease in extreme poverty in human history.
Roughly 700 million Chinese people alone have escaped extreme poverty since
1980, and most of that is attributable to China’s decision to embrace the
market economy and international trade. Want to keep Africa as poor as
possible? Throw up as many trade barriers as you can.
Politically, I get where Sanders is coming from. American
labor unions hate foreign competition. Democrats, meanwhile, don’t mind
importing poor foreign laborers because they believe those workers will become
Democratic voters. But importing goods made by those same foreign laborers if
they stay in their home countries? Outrageous!
One irony to this all of is that despite all the
textbooks that claim nationalism and socialism are opposites, the reality is
that when translated into policy, they’re closer to the same thing. The
rhetoric may be different, but the economic program of nationalism is
socialism, and the emotional underpinnings of socialism boil down to
nationalism. For instance, Sanders wants socialized medicine. Well, what is the
difference between socialized medicine and nationalized health care? Spelling.
I’m no fan of Donald Trump and I think he’s wrong on
trade. But at least he’s honest when he admits he’s for America first.
No comments:
Post a Comment