You are right.
And it will be interesting to see which Freepers agree with Schafly, and disagree with Reagan (and Palin, and Levin, and Sowell, and Williams, etc) on this economic issue.
Many will. Sad.
There aren’t any easy or pat answers about foreign economic policy. Each has risks and costs, as well as benefits.
But the union phenomenon, for whatever good it may once have done, has now run amok and shoots America in the foot. Things are driven overseas that never needed to be.
That group of voters who pulled the lever for Ross Perot has never really gone away (and in some areas of the country I think it’s grown).
We can debate the merits, but this sort of economic populism would be a way out of the woods for the GOP.
F-free trade. The term itself is amorphous and intentionally vague. When America was “protectionist” we were a powerhouse of industry and exported plenty. The idea of being protectionist simply conflicts with those whose agenda is to destroy the sovereignty of nations particularly the US. Thus putting America’s interests first is anathema if that equates to a strong independent country with borders, laws and a culture that don’t reflect or yield to some communal brotherhood of trade and prosperity for all...
The bric nations; China, Brazil, Russia, India and also Japan are by American standards and the screaming talking heads of conservatism absolutely protectionist of their own economies and for the most part their sovereignty.
Being protectionist doesn’t equate to somehow the cessation of international trade or giving the finger to the rest of the world. I think the knee-jerk reaction is that America would turn into a modern day Japan of centuries ago and crawl into a fetal ball.
It’s sad when the arguments are framed by a couple of words meant to persuade and then infantile ranting and ad hoc attacks and strawmen and then special pleading as to the complexity and wisdom of it all. Our elites and especially our “conservative” elites of politics, academia and especially talk radio I put the blame on whom through complicity or ignorance or profit have been participating on this ruse and giant lie that is free trade.
One can’t be for internationalism “in favor of an agenda that reduces America until it can and must fit into a world government as an equal” and still be for America “in favor of an strong and sovereign, independent nation separate and unyielding of it’s best interests”.
What used to be considered treasonous is now just one patriots differing version of what is a dream for America.
Freedom or tyranny - independence or submission.
free trade - euphemism for the raping of America.
If it wasn’t for America there would be no free trade as the whole thing is about our dissolution.
Like the Roman empire - when they allowed everyone to become citizens as their economy and money became devalued the value of citizenship became worthless and huge benefits became enslaving.
(aside)Similar to the Christian theological argument over free grace versus lordship salvation. After 30 years no one can quite describe what either position really is and the arguments are influenced by the terminology used. Who could be against “free” grace. I mean grace is free or it isn’t.
Maybe it’s a false dichotomy. Two choices presented as the only options that don;t tell the whole story or include all the options.
It is good the free traitors were not around in the 1930’s and 40’s. Europe would be a NAzi Empire and Asia would be under the Rising Sun. My guess China and Japan(and or South Korea) will be at it soon. On that day this great experiment with the selling out of America ends.. Can’t happen soon enough.