Buchanan’s Trade Stance Dangerous

When I was a junior in high school, I had the same European history teacher my brother had had five years before.

Jeffrey, ever organized, had kept copies of each weekly quiz Mr. Shields had administered. One week, quiz in hand and thinking I could trap my teacher, I challenged him, saying, “Do you know that you are asking the very same questions this year that you asked five years ago?”

He smiled a half smile and replied, “History hasn’t changed.”

I thought of Mr. Shields this week as I paged through my old friend Pat Buchanan’s memoir, “Right From the Beginning,” written in 1988.

Now, with his showing in Louisiana and Iowa, GOP presidential candidate Pat Buchanan has eclipsed Ross Perot to become the United States’ leading advocate of trade protectionism. This is not the same Pat Buchanan I knew and worked with in the Reagan White House. That Pat Buchanan was a fervent free trader.

Here’s how Pat put it in his own book: “In the fight to maintain open markets, worldwide, a strong president, again, is indispensable. Congress, composed of 535 moving parts, is incapable of resisting the concerted pressures of American corporations and unions.

“Among the great American achievements of the 20th century is free Asia, democratic and capitalist, which arose out of the ashes of World War II and Korea. Hundreds of millions of the most capable and energetic people in the world are prospering, on the side of freedom, because of the bravery of American soldiers. …

“To squander that in an absurd ‘trade war’ because we cannot compete with Korean cars or Japanese computer chips would be an act of almost terminal stupidity for the West.”

Well said, Pat!

But what happened? Today, Pat Buchanan argues that raising tariffs is the way to go to protect American jobs.

Has history changed? Buchanan says he’ll be a tough negotiator on trade matters - but will he cut off America’s nose to spite our face?

Today, Buchanan denies that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 deepened and lengthened the Great Depression. But Professor William Lash, director of the international law program at George Mason University, says, “There is no thinking economist on either side of the aisle who does not think that is true.”

How did the law have that effect? Well, we imposed tariffs on imports. That, in turn, permitted domestic producers to raise their prices, and they did so. Thus, everything - not just imports - became more expensive for consumers. That’s why economists refer to tariffs as just another form of tax.

Pat Buchanan is the only Republican candidate who is running on a platform of higher taxes. (In his book, Buchanan had said, “No new federal taxes should be imposed.”)

After we imposed the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, our trading partners retaliated with tariffs of their own, making it impossible for us to sell our goods overseas. Everyone got progressively poorer, especially the Germans, with results that need no recapitulation.

Though Buchanan likes to portray a “tough” stance on trade as “conservatism of the heart,” it really is “conservatism of the foolish” or no conservatism at all.

Conservatives oppose big government. Yet, to impose tariffs on certain goods, Buchanan would have bureaucrats in Washington deciding which domestic industries to favor and which to disfavor.

How? Well, if computer Company A imports its computer screens from Japan and Company B imports them from Malaysia, Buchanan would have government decide which company will prosper and which will not. Indeed, that would be true of whole industries.

There is another major political figure who thinks government should pick winners and losers in the marketplace. His name is Bill Clinton (he favors targeted investment in high-tech industries). But at least Clinton is not so far to the left as to endorse protectionism.

You won’t hear this from Pat Buchanan, but the United States is the world’s leading exporter. We sell the world airplanes, electronics products, computers, medical services and equipment and agricultural products, among many other things. At least 14 million U.S. jobs depend directly on exports.

Protectionism, especially in the hands of such an articulate spokesman as Buchanan, is enticing. But it is dangerous in the extreme.

Economic prosperity, like freedom, is not free. It must be defended vigilantly.

xxxx