I remember when folks understood what “MFN,” and “free-trader” actually meant. Now, protectionists throw the words around like candy. Suffice it to say, a free-trader wishing free trade with China would advocate a Free Trade Agreement, instead of the tariffs allowed under MFN.
I know what it means. Most Favored Nation...It was a trade arrangement that allowed countries, so designated, to have reduced, little, or no tariffs while trading with the US. Since the beginning of our republic, such a trade designation was meant to reward our allies and build good economic/diplomatic relations. Towards the end of the 1990’s, MFN had been extended to so many different countries that it became a nearly useless designation. If 80% of the countries you deal with have MFN status, than what is so special about that? The point is that China did not have MFN at that time. They did not have the the nearly unrestrained access to our markets that they now have. I thought it was a bad idea to extend it to them for economic and national security reasons (I think time has proven me right). The political class was enamored with the idea of free trade or bought-off by foreign powers, so they gave our country to the Chinese.
Putting American business and national security interests first is not protectionism, it is rational and Constitutional behavior. International Free-Trade Organizations such as the WTO, GATT, etc.(bodies to which our politicians have ceded much of our autonomy), are extra-Constitutional. Your argument is with Alexander Hamilton and the founding fathers, not me.