Free trade will be our demise

Right Reason
    By Matthew G. Alexander

Probably the most important contribution Pat Buchanan has made to the presidential campaign has been to raise an idea that is anathema to many liberals and conservatives alike: free trade is not the best economic policy for the United States. In opposition to free trade, Buchanan rightly advocates a nationalistic trade policy that safeguards America's interests, particularly those of its workers.

SHAWN CHENG/YH

The best arguments made against free trade accept the premises of the policy as true, but question the desirability of its implementation. Free trade apologists correctly claim that the policy develops comparative advantage, meaning that countries specialize in what they are best suited to produce. For the U.S., this means an exchange of low-skilled jobs for high-skilled jobs, which can be seen in the movement of factories from the U.S. to countries that pay lower wages. The result of free trade, therefore, is an aggregate increase in world production and efficiency. What could be better?

Since the primary duty of a government is to protect the interests of its own country and people, one must determine whether completely free trade is consistent with that duty. The quintessential "loser" in free trade is the manufacturing industry, and it is an important sector to examine when analyzing the effects of trade policy. It is indisputable that many American factories are closing and moving abroad and that U.S. industry is on the decline. Free trade advocates argue that this is tolerable because American advantage lies elsewhere and the U.S. could easily import manufactured goods from other countries.

There are, however, problems with this argument. Industry is vital to national security, and becoming dependent on other countries for industrial products imperils Amer-ica's ability to produce the weapons, ammunition, and vehicles needed to wage war. A scenario is entirely conceivable in which a hostile power overruns America's trading partners and allies, leaving the U.S. isolated, with its import flows cut off. The oil crisis of the 1970s, made possible by the scarcity of a natural resource beyond America's control, demonstrated how potentially nightmarish it can be to rely on others for a vital resource. There is no reason for our country to risk another crisis by intentionally abandoning a capability it presently possesses.

Globalist trading regimes also tend to diminish American strength and sovereignty because they often need to be managed by powerful international bodies. The World Trade Organization, for example, is the first international organization of which the U.S. is a member but over which the U.S. does not have veto power. In its capacity as arbiter of trade disputes, this organization can overrule constitutionally-enacted American trade and labor laws that it deems prejudicial toward other countries. This process could indeed set a disturbing precedent.

But the most persuasive argument against free trade is the detrimental effect of the policy on the American worker and, by extension, on American society. We may not like to admit it, but all men are not endowed with equal intellectual faculties. Thus, even with job training, many workers will still be unsuited for the high-skilled jobs that are taking the place of factories. Worrisome also for America is the implicit deprecation of the blue-collar way of life. The word "successful" is being redefined to include only professionals and those who earn a lot of money. But middle America has always been the foundation of our society. While some may argue that "progress" has rendered industry outmoded in America, it is fair to question whether such "progress" is desirable. For to abandon middle America and its values is to lead this country on a sure path to decadence and decline.

The best trading policy, then, would be a middle course between free trade and autarchy. While certainly engaging in and gaining from trade, the U.S. should employ tariffs, quotas, subsidies, and other tools to insure that other countries remain as open to American products as America is to it own goods. This would prevent market forces from bleeding the U.S. of its vital industrial resources. Such a trade policy would most properly safeguard our national interest.

Recent Herald Columns by this Columnist:
NOTE: SITE WILL APPEAR IN A NEW BROWSER WINDOW

• Prejudice in Brooklyn art, 10/22/99
• China's atrocities must end, 10/8/99
• Lessons for city renewal lie in the past, 9/24/99

Back to Opinion...