2016-10-06T21:15:24-04:00

As we’ve blogged about, both candidates are campaigning against free trade.  Texas Tech economist Benjamin Powell defends free trade, examining the complaints both candidates are making.  He concludes that importing goods from abroad and even trade “cheating,” such as China subsidizing its steel industry, makes Americans wealthier.

Is Prof. Powell right?  Does he leave out some considerations? (more…)

2016-09-29T18:15:12-04:00

Whoever gets elected president will oppose free trade.  In fact, both parties are rivaling each other in condemning trade agreements such as NAFTA (which forms a common market with Canada and Mexico) and the not-yet-ratified TPP (which eases trade with Australia and Asian countries other than China).

Such a turnabout is astonishing, since Republicans have long championed free markets and Democrats have come around to agree with them.  Credit, or blame, for this new stance goes to the popularity of Donald Trump, who has roused the masses against American industries moving factories and jobs overseas and American products being driven out by cheaper imports.

I can see the appeal of a self-contained national economy, but getting there would seem to involve some dangerous tradeoffs.  If we erect trade barriers such as high tariffs and our trading partners retaliate, won’t that be economically disastrous?  American companies will suddenly lose a major part of their markets.  Prices for consumers will skyrocket.  After awhile, maybe new companies would take up the slack, but, in the short term at least, wouldn’t this cause recession and even more unemployment?

This is not my field, so I am open to instruction. (more…)

2015-05-14T18:55:44-04:00

As Democrats make a political point of rejecting the free trade agreement known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership–to the point of defying the Democratic President–Charles Lane clears up the disinformation being spread about the treaty.

He says that, contrary to the rhetoric,  it won’t lose American jobs by sending industries to lower-wage countries.  Our biggest partners in this agreement, who would open their markets to us, would be Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.  All of which pay  higher wages than the United States!  There are low-wage countries in the pact, such as Mexico and Peru, but we already have free trade agreements with them!

Also, in a column criticizing Hillary Clinton for being silent on a treaty she helped to create, Robert Kagan gives the underlying strategic reason for the Trans-Pacific Partnership:  forging an alliance to counter China. (more…)

2015-05-13T17:39:07-04:00

A major priority for President Obama is the passage of the Pacific trade accord, a free trade bill that would open up markets in Asia.  But a proposal to fast-track the treaty–allowing a single up-or-down vote, rather than risking death by a thousand amendments–was defeated in the Senate.  All but one Republican took the President’s side, but all but one Democrat voted against him.  The measure fell short of the 60 votes it needed.  Lots of interesting issues here, which I raise after the jump.

UPDATE:  A deal seems to have been struck that will give the bill another shot.

(more…)

2025-05-18T18:51:38-04:00

The “Bush Doctrine” from President George W. Bush made as a priority for United States foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, to spread freedom and democracy.

The “Trump Doctrine,” as articulated by the president in his recent visit to Qatar and Saudi Arabia is to promote peace and prosperity.

The Bush Doctrine had nobler ideals, but it resulted in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which failed to implement freedom and democracy, which turned out to be not universal aspirations but the products of a culture and a religion that were alien to those nations.

The Trump Doctrine sounds more crass.  He held audiences with terrorists and supporters of terrorists, monarchs and dictators, promising them major trade advantages in return for peace.  But by holding out the possibility that both sides would profit from a U.S. trade deal, he made peace between India and Pakistan.

Rich Lowry discusses these two foreign policy philosophies in his essay Introducing the Trump Doctrine.

My questions for your input and discussion:  Is peace and prosperity the best we can realistically accomplish in foreign policy?  Or should we be promoting such values as freedom, democracy, and human rights?

Can we have both, or would we still need to prioritize one or the other?  In terms of the Trump Doctrine, is there any reason the U.S. and China should be antagonistic?

 

2023-08-04T19:31:54-04:00

We’ve blogged about “National Conservativism” and its manifesto. Now the other kind of conservatism, the strain  still committed to personal liberty and free market economics, has a manifesto and a catchy name:  Freedom Conservatism.

For the background and the context of this effort, read this story in Politico by Michael Schaffer.  The Nationalists’ document has 10 brief tenets, which I listed on my blog post.  So does the Freedoms’ document, with the principles often paralleling and answering the rival document.

Here the 10 tenets of Freedom Conservatism:

  1. Liberty. Among Americans’ most fundamental rights is the right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force: a right that, in turn, derives from the inseparability of free will from what it means to be human. Liberty is indivisible, and political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom.
  1. The pursuit of happiness. Most individuals are happiest in loving families, and within stable and prosperous communities in which parents are free to engage in meaningful work, and to raise and educate their children according to their values.
  1. The foundation of prosperity. The free enterprise system is the foundation of prosperity. Americans can only prosper in an economy in which they can afford the basics of everyday life: food, shelter, health care, and energy. A corrosive combination of government intervention and private cronyism is making these basics unaffordable to many Americans. We commit to reducing the cost of living through competitive markets, greater individual choice, and free trade with free people, while upholding the rule of law, freedom of contract, and freedom of association.
  1. Full faith and credit. The skyrocketing federal debt—which now exceeds the annual economic output of the United States—is an existential threat to the future prosperity, liberty, and happiness of Americans. We commit to building a constructive reform agenda that can restore America’s fiscal sustainability, ensuring that future generations inherit a more prosperous and secure nation than the one we now inhabit.
  1. A nation of laws, not men. Equality under the law is a foundational principle of American liberty. Unfortunately, today this principle is under attack from those who believe that the rule of law does not apply to them. One manifestation of this problem is the explosion of unaccountable and unelected regulators who routinely exceed their statutory authority and abridge Americans’ constitutional rights. The President should only nominate policymakers and judges who are committed to upholding these rights.
  1. Americans by choice. Immigration is a principal driver of American prosperity and achievement. America is exceptional because anyone—from any corner of the earth—can seek to live in America and become an American. Nearly all American citizens descend from someone who came here from somewhere else, and we must treat all citizens equally under the law. To this end, the United States, as a sovereign nation, has the right to secure its borders and design a rational immigration policy—built on the rule of law—that advances the interests and values of American citizens.
  1. Out of many, one. The best way to unify a large and diverse nation like the United States is to transfer as many public policy choices as possible to families and communities. Much of the discord in America today comes from the fact that too many decisions are made for us by centralized authorities. The Constitution of the United States is the best arrangement yet devised for granting government the just authority to fulfill its proper role, while restraining it from the concentration and abuse of power.
  1. America’s promissory note. Martin Luther King, Jr. described the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as containing “magnificent words…a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.” Prior to 1964, however, slavery and segregation were enforced by state governments and, in many cases, by the federal government. Many who descend from victims of this system now face economic and personal hurdles that are the direct result of this legacy. We commit to expanding opportunity for those who face challenges due to past government restrictions on individual and economic freedom. We adamantly oppose racial discrimination in all its forms, either against or for any person or group of people.
  1. The shining city on a hill. American foreign policy must be judged by one criterion above all: its service to the just interests of the United States. Americans are safest and freest in a peaceful world, led by the United States, in which other nations uphold individual liberty and the sovereignty of their neighbors.
  1. Freedom of conscience. Essential to a free society is the freedom to say and think what one believes to be true. Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, federal and state governments have a legal obligation to uphold and protect these freedoms. Private institutions have a moral obligation to do the same.
Compare these 10 convictions to the 10 convictions of National Conservatism, which you can find here, more fully developed at the movement’s website.
This is, of course, a debate between what I have called “small government conservatives,” who want to limit government and maximize individual liberty and “big government conservatives,” who want to use government power for conservative social ends.
You will note that the Freedom Conservatism document says nothing explicitly about God and religion, though the signatories include a number of religious leaders.  Whereas the National Conservatism document says much about God and religion, though, as we have discussed at this blog, much of that is theologically problematic.  (See this and this.)

Shaffer makes the point that the Republican presidential candidates are pretty much ignoring the debate.  But while they are certainly ignoring the theoretical debate that is roiling the conservative movement and claiming the label “conservative” without explaining what kind of conservative they are, you can certainly tell the difference in the policies they are recommending.

National Conservatism grew out of the Donald Trump phenomenon, an effort by conservative intellectuals to turn the “Make America Great Again” slogan and its related policy proposals into a coherent ideology.  So Trump exemplifies National Conservatism, as does Ron DeSantis, who hopes to use government power to shut down the “woke agenda” in schools, businesses, and government.

Thus, Chris Christie, as a Freedom Conservative, is able to to claim that DeSantis, with his initiatives against big corporations like Disney, is “not a conservative.”  He is, but not Christie’s kind of conservatism.

As for the other candidates. . . .Well, you tell me.  I don’t know if any of them advocate free trade, traditionally a shibboleth for free market conservatives, given the hostility to China.  Some, such as Nikki Haley, are arguably yet another kind of conservative:  The “neo-conservatives” who promote aggressive military action to spread democracy.

Where do you think Tim Scott, Vivek Ramaswamy, and other Republican candidates would fit in with these ideologies?

More importantly, perhaps, if you are a conservative, what kind of conservative are you?

I myself have Free Conservative instincts, but I recognize that some of our cultural problems are so enormous and so consequential–such as life issues–that a laissez faire approach will not resolve them (indeed is responsible for them), giving me some sympathy for the National Conservatives.  And yet I fear authoritarianism.

Help me out as I try to think through all of this!

 

Illustration by Linnaea Mallette, CC0, Public Domain via PublicDomainPictures.net

Follow Us!



Browse Our Archives