Posted on 06/20/2002 11:12:21 AM PDT by madeinchina
It is possible for reasonable people to disagree on policy questions, but when they move beyond citing logic and evidence and start trying to categorize their opponents in philosophical terms, it opens up a new line of argument. Debaters resort to defining their allies or opponents in ideological terms in order to attract an audience based on the definition rather than on the facts of the case. If someone says Argument X is a 'conservative' position, they are either trying to win to its banner those who think of themselves as conservatives on other grounds, or rally those who think of themselves as liberals against it.
Ever so often, however, new issues arise that cut across the standard left-right division. Trade policy is one of those issues that causes people to realign themselves along the spectrum.
A good example of shoddy debating tactics is a recent column by Deroy Murdock, a contributing editor to National Review Online. NRO is the web version of what has long been the nation's leading conservative magazine. Bright and dynamic, NRO gets a lot of hits and generally deserves to -- but not this time.
Murdock is unhappy with Republican President George W. Bush's decision to grant safeguards to the U.S. steel industry in the face of a damaging surge of imports from predatory foreign rivals. "It is openly political, nakedly statist, and far left of Bill Clinton, who ignored the steel industry's protectionist demands." whines Murdock.
On what basis can Murdock claim that President Bush is to the 'far left' of President Clinton on international economic issues? When Clinton "ignored the steel industry's protectionist demands," it was a manifestation of Clinton's very left-wing notion that because of the exalted position of the United States, America should sacrifice its own interests for the good of 'the world.' After all, the 40,000 American workers who lost their jobs are 'rich' compared to the Third World laborers who toil in foreign mills. Clinton's creed was one of global wealth redistribution; trade as a form of foreign aid.
While visiting Japan in November, 1997, Clinton said he chose to accept a significant expansion of the U.S. trade deficit in order to stem the Asian economic crisis. "I made a decision with the full support of my entire economic team that we would do everything we could to leave America's markets as open as possible, knowing full well that our trade deficit would increase dramatically for a year or two." It has now been five years of increasing deficits, with no end in sight. During Clinton's second term (1997-2000), the trade deficit more than tripled.
President Clinton's early penchant for seeking United Nations approval before taking any action was based on this same principle of subordinating American power to an imagined global community. His embrace of the World Trade Organization also flowed from this notion.
Under Clinton, the U.S. committed billions of dollars to 'bailouts' of foreign economies administered by organizations like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. But somehow, Murdock believes it was more left-wing for Bush to act under U.S. law to keep American industries running and American workers employed.
Yet, if conservatism means anything, it means protection of the American national interest -- its security and prosperity, without which the country's independence and cultural values cannot be maintained. The doctrine of 'free trade' cares nothing about national interest, and its strongest exponents during its formulation were on the left of the political spectrum for this very reason. For Murdoch to place 'free trade' at the highest point in his own ideological mindset is enough to disqualify him on the spot from any claim to being a conservative.
Indeed, looking at the archive of his other NRO writings reveals Murdoch to be a libertarian, not a conservative. He has written several columns advocating legalizing marijuana, and implying the same for harder drugs. In a February 19 column, he commented on President Bush's claim that, "If you're buying illegal drugs in America, it is likely that money is going to end up in the hands of terrorist organizations." Murdoch wrote, "His point is not without merit when it comes to cocaine, some of whose proceeds reach Colombia's Marxist FARC guerrillas. Likewise, the Taliban profited from heroin and opium smuggling. Of course, the war on drugs relegates these products to the black market, where shady characters dwell, rather than the sunshine of free trade." So once again 'free trade' dominates his thoughts -- even for narcotics trafficking!
Last September 12, Murdoch jumped into print not to damn terrorism and call for a vigorous counterattack -- like most Americans, but to warn that "leaders and voters alike should be very careful about embracing measures today that will leave citizens less free in the long run in an effort to catch criminals in the here and now. The Bill of Rights must not collapse with the Twin Towers." He would have been right at home in such left-wing settings as Pacific Radio or UC-Berkeley.
His only NRO piece since 9-11 concerning the war against terrorism started out, "America's war on terror has employed Daisy Cutter bombs, missile-equipped surveillance drones, and forensic accountants who have dammed al-Qaeda's illicit cash flows. Free trade should be another arrow in America's anti-terrorist quiver." In other words, it was not really a column about the war (in which he apparently has little interest), but only again about his obsession with 'free trade.'
It would be hard to find a doctrine more shallow and useless as a guide to national policy than 'free trade.' It is not just the difficulty of placing 'free traders' somewhere on the political spectrum, but whether their doctrine has enough content to deserve a spot anywhere at all.
So before listening to someone appealing to your values to support their cause, check to see what their values are, because it's their values, not yours, that motivate their actions.
Pot, kettle, black.
Greed has replaced common sense.
Managed Trade = Bad
We do not have free trade, we have managed trade. Its just called "free trade" to confuse the ignorant masses.
Quote of the day!
Neither "Left" nor "Right".
"Free Traders" are those who aspire to be the aristocracy ruling 21st Century feudalism.
Free trade=laissez faire=conservative
tarrifs=control/greed=liberal
Always has - always will be.
Here's another example of the author defining himself a rhetorical victory:
"Murdock is unhappy with Republican President George W. Bush's decision to grant safeguards to the U.S. steel industry..."
SAFEGUARDS????? So, now raising taxes is not only conservative, but it's a "safeguard". This guy could define anything to be conservative.
You mean the same Framers who rebelled against the British Mercantile system which protected Britain's "independent national economy" from outsiders like France?
It wasnt until Wilson and his band of socialists that globo-trading became the "only reasonable answer".
The world was moving to free trade and then the Europeans wanted "national independence." The result was WWI. They didn't want to have to work together peacefully in a capitalist framework. Only socialists oppose free trade between two nations that are willing to implement it completely.
Greed has replaced common sense.
Nationalism replaced greed. Free trade between nations makes it impossible to go to war. When a corporation has major operations in both nations, it will do whatever it can to prevent war lest war raze the means of production to the ground. Those arguing for national economic independence for the world are trying to give our leaders no economic incentive to not be belligerent.
I really don't understand this sentiment. I can see it if you think there should be no taxes at all; but if you accept that there needs to be some taxes, then the way to do it that's least intrusive and most supportive of national sovereignty - i.e. assists in the only truly legitimate function of government - is through tariffs. How anyone can consider that more "socialist" than a graduated income tax is something that I'll never be able to understand without the aid of narcotics.
Free trade between nations makes it impossible to go to war.
...Desert Storm...
Sure, I agree. However, we have not had free trade in many years. Free trade does not entail shipping off jobs. If you want to argue that the minimum wage should be abolished, then I'm with you. But free trade entails countries trading commodities. It doesn't entail companies from one country relocating in another, producing goods there, and shipping the goods back to the home country.
If China or India has a commodity America needs, that we can not produce, then great, we can buy it from them. Same goes for India or China. If its a good we can produce here, it should not be purchased from the other country, and if it is, tarrifs should be placed upon the good.
Free trade involves the word "free". NAFTA and GATT have nothing to do with free trade. Its simply managed trade, which is bad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.