It is not less dangerous because it is so politically attractive, I understand that 70% of America supports the carrier deal. It is brilliant politically and perhaps should be welcomed as a measure which will improve Trump's standing even before he takes office and removes his deficit in the negatives column.
I would add one thought, and that is that when we seek to "ameliorate the dislocations caused by globalism and trade deals that put us at a disadvantage" we must inevitably sacrifice the interests of some other sector of our economy. The campaign was run and we for the most part here in this forum are still thinking in terms of reforming our trade posture as a free lunch.
Inevitably, one sector will be harmed as another sector is advantaged.
In today's world it appears that, despite the views of many in this forum, we can prosper only if we engage in world trade. That means that we must consider the impact of our trade deals not just on individual sectors of the economy, some of whom will be harmed, but on the whole of society. In other words, we are forced by technology and the state of the world today to engage in modern-day mercantilism. We must do that or we fall behind financially and militarily. Yet to do so threatens capitalism and threatens liberty and inevitably threatens some sectors of the economy.
My plea is that we do this constitutionally, transparently, and in good faith. That is an awful lot to ask of any set of politicians but at least we here on Free Republic should be free to point out the upside and downside on these questions without being accused of treachery.
