Donald Trump: A 21st Century Protectionist Herbert Hoover

Here's a historical fact that Donald Trump, and many voters attracted to him, may not know: The last American president who was a trade protectionist was Republican Herbert Hoover.

Obviously that economic strategy didn't turn out so well — either for the nation or the GOP.

Does Trump aspire to be a 21st century Hoover with a modernized platform of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff that helped send the U.S. and world economy into a decade-long depression and a collapse of the banking system?

We can't help wondering whether the panic in world financial markets is in part a result of the Trump assault on free trade.

Trump is also now running full throttle on an anti-immigration platform that could hurt growth as well and alienate Republicans from ethnic voters that the GOP needs if it is going to win in 2016.

We call this the Trump Fortress America platform. He clearly sees international trade and immigration as a negative sum game for American workers.

He recently announced that as president he would prohibit American companies like Ford from building plants in Mexico. He moans pessimistically that "China is eating our lunch" and is "sucking the blood out of the U.S.?"

But strategic tax cuts and regulatory relief after the anti-business rule-making assault by Obama, not trade and immigration barriers, are the solution to America's competitiveness deficit.

A draft of Trump's 14-point economic manifesto promises that, as president, he would "modify or cancel any business, or trade agreement that hinders American business development, or is shown to create an unfair trading relationship with a foreign entity." Special: Engineers Call This the ‘Solar Panel Killer’ His immigration stance would not just deport illegal immigrants, but even lock the golden doors to those who come lawfully

I like to think of myself as a free thinker as I get older, not just parrot a line because it is "the Republican thing to do" or "the conservative thing to do." I see myself as a libertarian/conservative, the true meaning of both is that one can think on their own and come up with their own conclusions whether many agree or not. I know I'll get into trouble for this but here goes.

I see both pure socialism or communism as well as capitalism as basically where both system are set up to fail at some point. In a nutshell, socialism/communism, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money and such a system does not really reward people who work hard or are brighter, they all get paid the same so it appeals to a lowest common denominator. There are or were exceptions like in the old USSR, as long as you tow the party line and if you are brighter, you might get as few extra perks like a better car, a dacha or the first choice of better consumer goods but for the most part, you are screwed. Also, you have more limited goods, people want things.

On the other side, capitalism. Maybe in its purest form it would work but again, human nature rears its head like it does in socialism/communism. People are different as are nations and like people/nations, they look out for Number One or they should. Cheap goods are fine but if they weaken your nations ability to produce and defend itself, sooner or later, you will not have a nation left rendering the point moot. Capitalism also appeals to a lowest common denominator as well where sooner or later it goes towards the place where labor is cheapest. That's all well and good until your own people are out of work and cannot even afford the cheap products that are made. People in order to live need to have jobs to work at, either that or go on welfare.

I took 4 years of German in high school and studied a lot about (then) West Germany. I do admire on how they do some things over there with their ideas on apprenticeship and education. Then again, some of it was due to us, although they had a good defense, they did rely on the U.S. to be fair so they did have the resources and funds to direct elsewhere. I'm part German myself and my best friend lived there for a while when he was little and he liked it. The only big downside, lack of A/C though, I need a window unit. B-)

Maybe in the grand scheme of thing, free trade is the right thing to do but overall the way the world is, it is not always the best policy to follow.

One more thing, I always thought our diversity was a weak point, you will not go on the one needed path of you have umpteen people pulling the wagon into umpteen directions. I daresay that in more homogenous nations like Germany (until the muzzies take over), Norway, Japan and so forth where people generally have the same wants and needs, things will get done in a more timely matter. Even socialism “works better” because of that as well, being homogenous is a key. Here in the U.S., the wants, needs and expectations above a basic level are different among differing peoples and areas. A person in Texas has more need for A/C while one in Alaska has more need for a furnace. Also, among differing ethnic groups that also have differing outlooks and wants. If TSHTF happens, nations like ours and Canada could fly apart.

It is not by accident that the left hated "Leave It to Beaver"

Isn't it a twisted and degraded mind that walks out of a house that needs 7 dead bolt locks to hop in a car that needs further locks and alarms to stop at a bank to use an ATM that needs an armed guard to patrol, on your way to a shopping center where you'll probably pass 15 drug houses to get out of the car in a parking lot where if it is dark, you better be aware of your surroundings, etc., looks back at a time when none of this was needed as inferior?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.