One of the things that drives Trump's critics insane is the way The Donald constantly shifts his policy positions. Instead of making definite pledges to do this or that, he hedges, hides behind ambiguity and routinely contradicts himself.
This is anathema to the modern conservative movement, that has increasingly come to resemble the left: Demanding unthinking obedience to a series of check-the-box statements of belief.
The irony is that conservatism itself is supposed to be the "anti-ideology," a collection of discrete solutions to various problems rather than a holistic solution to all of life's problems. Indeed, modern conservatism emerged precisely because of the left's once-size-fits all approach to problem solving.
In the next few blogs I'm gong consider some of the core conservative beliefs and why simply checking the box no longer works.
Free Trade
I find it ironic that so many Republicans are denouncing Trump for questioning the utility of free trade. Historically, the GOP was very protectionist, and there were good reasons for this.
In the first place, not all trading partners were equal. While the United States was one of the first nations to experience the industrial revolution, England was the pioneer. Having achieved its benefits, it was both possible and desirable for them to use their ability to produce cheaper goods to prevent competition from emerging. US manufacturers understood this and the GOP embraced this concept. In fact, take a look at this campaign poster from 1860:
Look at that. "Free Speech, Free Homes, Free Territory, Protection to American Industry."
Gosh, I'd say Trump is more true to the GOP's roots than the conservatives are.
Long before the US was a major military power, there were concerns about our ability to defend our nation. Developing independent industrial capacity was viewed as a matter of national survival. Limiting cheap imports therefore helped enrich our local communities by providing jobs and also made us less dependent on foreign powers for critical goods.
It is also important to remember that "free trade" was not viewed as a universal thing, but rather a bilateral arrangement. The US would negotiate trade agreements on a case-by-case basis where it made sense.
Back in the day, we would never dream of having free trade agreements with a slave empire, which is essentially what China is. I find it fascinating when the various think tanks tough free trade as an unalloyed good. Is it?
Consider the toy market. Almost all toys are now made in China. This makes them cheap, but at the cost of destroying the American toy manufacturing industry. Toys are an interesting case because by definition no one actually needs toys. Let's be even more specific and confine ourselves to action figures.
So let us imagine a situation where a tariff is placed on action figure imports. As a result, prices double.
People are going to buy a lot less action figures now, which will impact retail stores. How it impacts them isn't clear, though because while the quantity sold will fall, the price per unit would go up.
Imports would drop, and those imports that were brought in would increase federal revenue. This would also reduce our trade deficit. In addition, it would now make economic sense to produce action figures domestically.
The thing to remember is that this isn't a blanket levy on all action figure imports. It would be targeted to those nations with the most unfair economic circumstances. Action figures from Europe would be unaffected (I'm thinking of those Schleich ones) because their labor market and living conditions are very similar to ours.
Conservatives tell us that China would retaliate and this would lead to a trade war. But would it? Why would China, which unquestionably would take a hit, make its pain even worse? This isn't the 1930s were trade is confined to a half-dozen developed nations. There are plenty of partners out there and if China gets belligerent, we can simply look to broaden relations with India or, ahem, Taiwan and Japan.
It is true that prices will rise, sales will fall and less toys will be purchased, but the American toy stockpile isn't a critical national resource is it? Most of these guys are going to end up in landfills anyway.
The other problem (which the black-hearted conservatives at National Review refuse to address) is what happens to the displaced workers? Not everyone can be a college graduate working for Google (and even those that have the skills are being replaced by indentured servants - more on that later).
Kevin Williamson infamously wanted the communities of Appalachia broken up and paved over - or perhaps returned to a state of nature. The jobs are gone, the mines have closed and those people need to deal with it.
Okay, so where do they go? Texas? They should uproot themselves so they can compete with illegals for construction jobs and mow lawns for a living? That's the big solution to revitalize the working class?
"Globalization" is not an inevitable event. Despite efforts to portray it as a tectonic shift, it is entirely a self-inflicted problem. The US has made itself unable to compete - partly through regulation but also partly because its leaders have zero qualms about destroying the domestic manufacturing base. They fail to see it as a strategic resource.
Comments