Doubtful in the extreme. He was an agrarian utopionist. He initially fought against protection, until he witnessed on his own watch, how critical it was to maintain U.S. independence, not just military/industrially, but politically/economically.
Anyways,
If you wanted to use historical precendent, and you were smart, you would have gone with Alexander Hamilton.
I was merely quoting the Times Magazine observation. Alexander Hamilton did get on our Currency anyways...just not on Mount Rushmore as he never got the chance to be President, since he was shot by Aaron Burr.
That being said, the economics of 18th century America (or even TR's America) are not a template for the current global economy.
So you "modern types" must just not be conservative enough. Perhaps they should be our templates today.
Today, information, materials, products, and consumers all move in a fashion that would be unrecognizable to the earlier eras.
So? You think they were idiots and wouldn't be able to adapt their protectionist policies accordingly? Typical LIBERAL presumption.
And there was no income tax back then either.
So? And how is it better to have that??? Give us back Hamilton. So that the Income tax, and your precious "global economy" can then go straight to Hell where they belong, LOL!
The U.S. did just fine without having to prostrate itself before foreign powers and World Government dictums.
"Utopianist" is the very definition of a liberal. Protectionism is the least efficient method that a government can use to raise funds, because it makes everything more expensive while at the same time driving companies that export out of buisness. This is not a liberal concept like, say raising taxes through tariffs. The average Mexican spends more money on US imports than the average American spends on Mexican imports. Same thing with Canada, our number one and two trading partners. I'm all for eliminating the income tax (or moving to a flat tax), but the more feasible way would be through the use of a sales tax.