Redstate

By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Barack Obama | Economy | Free Trade | Hillary Clinton | Mercantilism | Protectionism | The Populist Right — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

We are informed that Barack Obama intends to be more wonky in his speechmaking. This is good to know. It would be even better if in addition to being wonky, Senator Obama would bother to ensure that he is correct about the details of the issues he discusses.

Alas, this is not the case when it comes to issues like trade. As the Washington Post points out, both Obama and Hillary Clinton have been decidedly unenlightened when it comes to the issue of free trade:

. . . there are moments like last Wednesday, when Mr. Obama struck some unusually sour notes in what was billed as a major economic policy address. Yes, there were the trademark invocations of "shared sacrifice and shared prosperity." But Mr. Obama's remarks were also tinged with an angrier, and intellectually sloppier, message. We thought we'd heard the last of class warfare and populism when former North Carolina senator John Edwards finally bowed out of the race. In his speech, Mr. Obama quoted Mr. Edwards approvingly; he then echoed him in implying that he could pay for new domestic programs with an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and in exaggerating the "millions" of job losses attributable to trade agreements. Mr. Obama even seemed to draw a line connecting the current subprime mortgage crunch to "decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China."

These simplifications might help Mr. Obama beat out Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for the dubious prize of an Edwards endorsement. They might play well in Ohio, where foreclosures are rampant, some plants have shut because of international competition -- and the Democrats hold a crucial primary on March 4. But they are not worthy of a candidate whose past speeches and writings demonstrate that he understands the benefits of free trade. "I won't stand here and tell you that we can -- or should -- stop free trade," Mr. Obama declared, candidly, then quickly promised that "I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers." It's not clear what he means by this. Mr. Obama supported the Peru Free Trade Agreement, which contained such protections, but he opposes the proposed pact with Colombia, which has labor and environmental provisions similar to those in the Peru deal. To account for the seeming contradiction, Mr. Obama echoes organized labor's exaggerated complaints about human rights violations in Colombia. He doesn't support the Korea Free Trade Agreement, which promises the greatest benefits of all the pending trade deals to the U.S. economy -- but is fiercely opposed by a narrow slice of the auto industry and the auto workers union.

Read on . . .

Greg Mankiw gives us more depressing details on this uptick in economic Neanderthalism. And the Neanderthalism doesn't stop there. In recent comments, Obama blamed the economic downturn we are experiencing on "income inequality." This would come as a surprise to economists who actually have a grasp and command of the issues surrounding income inequality, people like Gary Becker and Kevin Murphy, who point out that what we call "income inequality" is in fact the natural consequence of an economy that is increasingly populated by people who have benefited from higher education. Obama has ignored all of these details thus far and has instead run a substance-free campaign on economic issues. His attempts to tie free trade and "income inequality" to every single bad economic development under the sun are free and devoid of any kind of a demonstration of a causal relationship between his favorite bugaboos and the economic bad news he decries. Hillary Clinton is, of course, no better.

In all honesty, it should be pointed out that there are plenty of people on "the Right" who appear to have decided that championing free trade ain't all it's cracked up to be anymore. Mike Huckabee didn't start this brand of know-nothingism but he certainly helped push it along. Facts don't matter to any of those people on the Left or on the populist Right who have decided--in a fevered moment of bad judgment that has, alas, lasted far too long--to undermine one of the single most effective prosperity-making ideas of all time. And yes, I have heard all the arguments about how trade with Communist China is a bad idea and hurts us. Guess what: Those arguments are bogus. (If you disagree with the arguments presented in the Cato link, do try to actually take on those arguments instead of screaming "It's Cato! I won't listen to them! Lalalalalala!!!!!!!!!") Are you concerned about the quality of some of the products that are sent our way from China? So am I, but that is a food and products safety issue. It is not an excuse for protectionism. Facts matter. And the facts are not on the protecionists' side. End of story; I am sorry if this state of affairs disappoints economic isolationists, but life is full of such letdowns--one of which is that there are so many economic isolationists to deal with and who seek to send the economy into the tank by advocating and trying to implement utterly boneheaded policies.

I care deeply about poor people. That's why I want them to be rich and one of the absolute best ways to make them rich is through free trade. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Huckabeeans doubtless love poor people as well. That's why they endorse protectionism and mercantilism and seek to undermine free enterprise in general; it ensures that there are a lot more poor people to love.