In any case, the link for the following is in my comment #93 (man, that seems a long time ago):
One of the greatest contributions the United States can make to the world is to promote freedom as the key to economic growth. A creative, competitive America is the answer to a changing world, not trade wars that would close doors, create greater barriers, and destroy millions of jobs. We should always remember: Protectionism is destructionism. America's jobs, America's growth, America's future depend on trade—trade that is free, open, and fair. [emphasis added]This year, we have it within our power to take a major step toward a growing global economy and an expanding cycle of prosperity that reaches to all the free nations of this Earth. I'm speaking of the historic free trade agreement negotiated between our country and Canada. And I can also tell you that we're determined to expand this concept, south as well as north. Next month I will be traveling to Mexico, where trade matters will be of foremost concern. And over the next several months, our Congress and the Canadian Parliament can make the start of such a North American accord a reality. Our goal must be a day when the free flow of trade, from the tip of Tierra del Fuego to the Arctic Circle, unites the people of the Western Hemisphere in a bond of mutually beneficial exchange, when all borders become what the U.S.-Canadian border so long has been: a meeting place rather than a dividing line.
Protectionism, from my reading, has usually been used to describe a situation where equalizing prices is the motivation behind tariffs. Reagan himself argued that such use of tariffs would make people complacent and ultimately that protection would lead to a certain laziness instead of continuously pursuing new methods or technolgies to gain a competitive edge (these are my words, but I hope you recognize the thoughts that he portrayed -- my memory is fuzzy as it's been quite a few years since reading this). I share that philosophy. But, in other instances, we saw Reagan rail about "unfair trade practices" and institute tariffs and other measures to compensate (steel, electronics, lumber, etc). From what I've seen from some free-traders on FR, people would be calling him a protectionist, an isolationist, a liberal, or a socialist -- or all of the above.
America's jobs, America's growth, America's future depend on trade—trade that is free, open, and fair.
My contention is that much of today's trade is subsidized through various tax policies. I mentioned a few -- port and transportation funding coming from taxpayers as opposed to being paid for by those receiving the direct benefit. It is for this reason that I don't think Ronald Reagan would be supportive of today's trade situation and would be railing about "unfair trade practices" in many areas.