Replies

"Allowing the government to impose tariffs that restrict our freedom to choose, freedom to purchase and invest in what we want, is hardly being a "flexible economy." That is the tactic of the centrally managed economy so adored by Socialists."

So you're saying that from about 1790 to 1960 our country was a centrally managed ecomomy adored by socialists? You do realize that most of the protectionism that is proposed now by Buchanan and others is a weak version of what the United States used over that 170 years? Sorry, but "free trade" is only a very recent episode in US history. Protectionism and limited, controlled immigration has been the rule through most of our nation's history. And during that period we rapidly led the world in technology, medicine, wages, and standard of living. Most of our powerful industrial base existed with the considerable assistance of protectionist insulation. So it can definitely be said that without protectionism, we would not have had the industrial base capable of challenging Germany and Japan during WWII.

You're allusion to the span of 18th-20th century history is so sweeping as to be ambiguous at best and pointless at worst. It is also anachronistic and the stats you vaguely refer to are incorrect. The tariffs imposed in the 19th century were modest compared to what is being imposed today. The tariffs you Buachananites want to impose in order to restrict trade will be exponential compared to those of the 19th century.

And saying that to extend what was minimal then by leaps and bounds today is like saying Jesus instructed his people to pay Rome's taxes, so therefore we shouldn't be concerned with a tax burden that is some ten times higher. Few conservatives would argue that today's tax burden is a non-issue and that paying more will help all Americans. A tariff is just another hidden tax on the consumer.

The point is that the US and the UK flourished best when we reduced the regulatory burden. This in spite of some governmental regulation. Friedman in "Free to Choose" clearly illustrates the direct ratio between less governmental regulation and economic benefit. The 19th century is what made our two nations economic giants and it was largely because of free trade. Hong Kong and Japan, hardly hotbeds of natural resources, have very limited governmental regulation and have flourished magnificently because of it.

Lumping our country's history post-FDR in with that of the 19th century is another ambiguous and illogical reference. What he did to socialize our economy was a disgrace. While it may have inched toward his changes since Lincoln, he proceeded by bounds toward Socialism, as did most of Western Europe, the results of which have been well documented in Hayek's "Road to Serfdom."

To try to argue that restricting trade through high tariffs and by so doing forcing people to work only within the "American" economy is somehow more free than being able to trade with other countries is patently absurd. It is Statist. No more, no less. It sounds like you would feel all safe and warm if the iron fist of the American government would clamp down around us and hammer out any other non-American economic opportunities. I don't. I believe that government is best which governs least. And that includes 'governing' the economy. And, as I said, I'm no free traitor. I think part of the dark side of Capitalism is that it is a respecter of no borders. The only line it respects is the bottom line. I think NAFTA was a waste and I don't support CAFTA. I even support restricting the number of offshore workers an American-based company can use. But I don't think isolationism is at all realistic, and I do believe that getting in a tariff war with our trading partners would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.