By David Harsanyi
Thursday, June 30, 2016
This week, Donald Trump likened international trade
agreements to the rape of the motherland. Also, in his anti-market speech, the
presumptive Republican argued that “politicians have aggressively pursued a
policy of globalization — moving our jobs, our wealth and our factories to
Mexico and overseas.” Tons of people cheered him. Worse, people who know better
said nothing.
It takes too much time and space to constantly point out
all the lies Trump perpetuates about trade. But it’s worth mentioning that
“globalization” is now one of those catchall insults which, like “neocon” or
“elitist,” has lost any practical meaning. It’s far more likely you’ll see a Republican
twisting himself into intellectual knots defending the party’s nominee than
defending free trade. No one wants to be a globalist.
So few elected Republicans of note, other than Sen. Ben
Sasse and perhaps a couple of others, pushed back against Trump’s litany of
absurdities on international trade. Don’t these people supposedly believe in
free markets? Many of them voted for the very deals the presumptive nominee of
their party is now calling rape.
Even economists like Stephen Moore, who’s helped shape my
own thinking on numerous economic issues over the years, argues that, well,
yes, China is probably cheating on “some of these deals,” so we should
renegotiate. The problem with this contention is that, as imperfect as deals
may or may not be, Trump isn’t looking to rework them to stem wrongdoing or to
open markets for more low-priced goods. He wants to raise tariffs, close those
markets, start trade wars, and bring unproductive jobs “back” to America.
These policies would lead to an economic disaster. I know
this because not that long ago a champion of free trade, economist Stephen
Moore, argued that Trump’s protectionism undermines the idea that “Americans
and workers all over the world” should “have access to the best-quality
products at the lowest possible prices.” This, he points out, is all about comparative
advantage, a theory taught to us by (the suspiciously foreign-sounding)
David Ricardo.
Similarly, let’s dispense with the notion that Trump
merely wants to end illegal immigration. His protectionist rhetoric goes far
beyond that, blaming an influx of people, not only the illegal kind, for our
economic troubles. But as Moore once pointed out, in 1980s and ’90s we saw
nearly 20 million new legal immigrants enter the country —“one of the largest
waves of newcomers in our nation’s history”— yet the United States created
“nearly 40 million new jobs, the unemployment rate plunged by half, and the
middle class saw living standards rise by almost one-third (between 1983 and
2005).”
Let’s also dispense with the idea that more trade
regulation will alleviate crony capitalism and elite control, as Trump
contends. The more regulations and restrictions you impose on the economy, the
more rent-seeking you have. Trump wants to create more of this, not less.
Yet if you propose that American kids shouldn’t be
saddled with low-paying, menial, unproductive jobs brought back from Vietnam,
you’re a globalist now. We’ve lost 6 million manufacturing jobs over the past
12 years, and those loses are often meted out in human suffering. But, as if it
needs to be repeated, U.S. manufacturing is producing far more with far less
through efficiency and modernization.
That’s not going to change because of political anger.
So while the GOP was negligent in acknowledging the many
legitimate anxieties of working-class voters, that doesn’t mean it has a duty
to surrender to their worst instincts. I guess pinning the shifting realities
of the economy on the Mexicans, Chinese, and immigrants is a lot easier than
blaming robots and other technological innovations. But surely there are
positive, free-market arguments available for Republicans to be making to these
people. Silence is a vacuum, and Trumpism is filling it.
There are some conflicting poll numbers on trade. One Pew
poll from earlier this year found that only a slight plurality of voters
believe free-trade agreements are a net positive for the nation. Among
Republicans and those who lean Republican, a majority believe trade agreements
are a negative.
It should also be noted that Democrats’ political
reaction to Trump’s anti-free-trade speech wasn’t to defend the Trans-Pacific
Partnership or North American Free Trade Agreement—or any of the deals that
mainline Democrats have supported in the past. It’s not surprising that AFL-CIO
President Richard Trumka, who substantively agrees with the basic Trump trade
positions, accused him of sending “American jobs overseas to line his own
pockets.” That sort of zero-sum protectionist rhetoric is a backbone of the
progressive economic rhetoric of Bernie Sanders, who is solidifying those kinds
of ideas on the left flank of the Democratic Party.
But what about Hillary Clinton? Her surrogates only
attacked Trump for outsourcing his branded apparel. There’s a legitimate point
to make about hypocrisy, but making only
that point affirms Trump’s position that trade is bad for the American worker
and economy. In this age of gotcha politics, Hillary is blessed to have an
opponent who gives her the space to avoid taking on thorny topics like trade in
a serious way.
Like many Democrats, Hillary becomes increasingly
critical of trade agreements when running for office — probably because she
sees it as a way to woo white, working-class voters. She has oscillated on
NAFTA, and gone from calling TPP the “gold standard” of trade deals to a deal
she’s “reserving judgment” on. If you value free trade—and, obviously, it’s not
the only issue—the best-case scenario for the country is that she’s lying
again. Maybe he is, too. Although I doubt it.
No comments:
Post a Comment