As for the issue of free trade, consideration must be given to what the legitimate military needs of the United States will be in the future. Unless you adhere to a Ron Paul-like position of withdrawing from world affairs, you must deal with the issue of the manufacturing and technological base needed to wage war successfully. (In fact, a neo-isolationist regime would have the same problem.) The Civil War and the two World Wars were won by the side that had the greater industrial capacity. If the United States lacks sufficient capacity in areas such as aircraft, motor vehicles, machine tools, electronics, primary metals, computers, and shipbuilding, our ability to project military power will be limited. Russia wants to restore its place in the sun, and China is a superpower wannabe. Neither can directly challenge us now, but that may not be the case in 10-20 years.
It may not be simon-pure Austrian economics, nor the received dogma of the foreign policy establishment, but if the United States is to play a leading force in the world against Muslim extremism, resurgent Marxism, and the Russian and Chinese threat, we must have the means to do so.
>>As for the issue of free trade, consideration must be given to what the legitimate military needs of the United States will be in the future. Unless you adhere to a Ron Paul-like position of withdrawing from world affairs<<Of course consideration must be given to legitimate military needs of the US. You're absolutely right. When the USSR was our enemy we sold them wheat and corn not submarine technology. I have no doubt we have erred in some of the things we've sold the Chinese.
The Civil War and the two World Wars were won by the side that had the greater industrial capacity. If the United States lacks sufficient capacity in areas such as aircraft, motor vehicles, machine tools, electronics, primary metals, computers, and shipbuilding, our ability to project military power will be limited.Right again, although I'd add that in each of those times trade was critical. If the South had been able to trade with Europe the war might have gone differently. We need more industrial production. We need more efficient production but we need to be able to trade with people who produce things more cheaply than we possibly can.
>>Phyllis Schlafly's most important contribution to the conservative cause was her opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s. Had that passed, the reconstruction of American society along secular humanist, anti-family, anti-male lines would be even further along than it is now.<<I understand Mrs. Schlafly's position on the ERA but she lacked critical information. That the equal protection clause that seems to provide equal rights would be interpreted as allowing discrimination against males and majorities. Its ironic but I suspect the ERA would have actually helped white males most since we have the least equal legal position