Replies

Other than the obvious ones, there are a number of things that must be acknowledged before one can go about claiming that the Founding Fathers believed that tariffs were the first step in regulating commerce. The Boston Tea Party is a good example (interesting link, by the way) of how relevant events are pulled-together to draw an irrelevant conclusion. Consider that the Boston Tea Party involved an import (tea) that:

1. was being forced down the colonists' throats,
2. the colonists were excessively taxed by the government doing the importing, and that
3. the colonists' response was to outlaw its consumption.

In other words, the colonists did not "protect" tea in order to raise revenue or protect jobs. The attempt by current-era protectionists to seize-upon what was essentially an common uprising as an example of enlightened economic policy falls short. To highlight this shortcoming, one must merely ask themselves: what is the current state of our domestic tea industry?

Apart from the matter of falsely "appropriating" the motives of the Founding Fathers in order to support various protectionist claims is the problem of finding justification in the language of the Constitution itself. Sure, Congress has the power to levy tariffs and regulate trade. But the Senate also has the authority to ratify a Treaty reducing tariffs or unregulating trade. Article II, Section 2. Yet another problem with the protectionists' selective interpretation.

Furthermore, if the actions of the Founding Fathers (and the actions of the fledgling Republic) exclusively are to be viewed through the prism of protectionism, how does one explain the Barbary War, which occurred shortly after the Revolution itself? Clearly, the U.S. was protecting its interest in free-trade by force. No free-trader dares therefore to claim that military action is the first step to unrestricted trade. Moreover, the Barbary pirates, it could be argued, were the ones "protecting" their domestic industry (essentially toll-based transport), although I find it unlikely that one or more of the pirates themselves were claiming that they needed to do so in order to protect their high-paying jobs.

So this is the crux of your dilemna. You are attempting to make a rational argument based on an appeal to emotion. Witness the howls of "it's for our national security," or "the Founding Fathers wouldn't approve," every time the free-market adversely affects a special-interest. Witness how many times the national-security argument then is subordinated to other factors.

Finally, I suggest that your best claim is not to the national-security exception to free-trade, but rather the fledgling-industry exception. Adam Smith understood that a newcomer to the market might need protection from its well-established rivals until it gets on-its-feet. The entire United States was a "fledgling-industry" during this period. The problem that Milton Friedman and others have pointed-out, and that current-era protectionists (maybe deliberately) overlook, is that the "until" never comes.

I never said tariffs were a "first step", but one of many possible choices. Getting rid of OPIC to underwrite the risks of doing business in 3rd world countries with our tax money would be a better first step.
National Security should never be subordinated to other factors. Our trade policy with Communist China is downright suicidal in the long term. That is not based on emotion, but based on current policies and trends.
I was attempting to draw on our own 200 year history of regulating commerce to our benefit. Even Reagan used tariffs to save Harley-Davidson. Common sense and logic are found in abundance in harpseal's list.

The Boston Tea Party article referenced a previous article:
"Free Trade: The Golden Calf of the Republican Party"
http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2000/3/13/083321
[We must look back to our roots, where men like George Washington supported economic measures against the threat of tyranny, because first, “war was a last resort,” and second, he hoped that “starving their trade and manufactures” would bring “their attention to our rights and privileges."]
This was the point of the Boston Tea Party. We have never had a domestic tea industry. England had The East India Company and that was the target.
I do not believe that I have falsely appropriated the motives of the Founding Fathers. I think that you have when you claim that tariffs were just to collect tax revenue.
The "fledgling industry" argument is valid, but national security is stronger and a reality (all emotions aside). From Lieberman to Kissinger to Duncan Hunter, the losses in manufacturing are seen as a threat to our national security.
Have you seen the articles about how the rest of the world views us? Despite our sacrifices and generosity toward building freedom throughout the globe in the last century we are mostly despised. I think now we should look to our own sovereignty, economy and borders.