Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Free trade is not anti-American
Free trade is not anti-American
Jan 11, 2026 1:27 AM

Is protectionism patriotic? The recent discussions about free trade and protectionism seems to suggest it is. If you love your country, you’ll protect its economy. In a new article from The Stream, Samuel Gregg, Acton’s director of research, examines the growing hostility of American conservatism towards free trade and explains why supporting free trade is actually patriotic. He says:

Over the past four years, Americans have turned against free trade. A majority nowsee free trade as bad for America. The biggest growth in anti-free trade feeling has occurred among Republicans and conservatives.

There are many reasons for this shift. For one thing, not all Americans immediately win from the opening of markets. Another problem is free trade’s politically-poisonous association with the Davos internationalista set.

Gregg recognizes the shift in ideology among conservatives regarding trade and calls for free traders to take action:

That’s why it’s so vital for those who believe in free trade to ground this belief in love of country. American protectionists have always wrapped themselves in the Stars and Stripes. To support tariffs and subsidies, they say, means you’re a patriot. To favor free trade, the argument goes, implies that you care more about Japan than West Virginian coal miners. President John Quincy Adam’s Secretary of State, Henry Clay was an arch-protectionist. He portrayed free trade as a way for the British to re-colonize the United States!

But American protectionists haven’t played the patriotism card for petty reasons. They know that Americans don’t view love of country as crude and outdated. Americans arestill pared to, say, most West Europeans. Over half of Americans own a flag.

That’s why free traders need to explain that free trade is the true patriotic choice.

Additionally, Gregg lays out some of the pitfalls of protectionism, and offers solutions to these problems that free trade is well-adept to solve:

The protectionist racket never seems to help American consumers — all 325,816,150 of them as of March 2017.

Even die-hard protectionists concede that free trade reduces prices. As Adam Smith observed long ago, open markets petition and help nations discover what they do pared to everyone else. This lowers the prices of goods and services for every American, regardless of race, sex, religion, or economic status.

…But there’s another aspect of free trade that helps America overall. Free trade petition. Competition helps Americans find their own weaknesses and strengths. It inspires us to innovate and create. It keeps U.S. firms on their toes. And it encourages them to focus on what customers need and want. That’s good for all Americans.

Protectionism, however, gives American businesses an incentive to do the opposite: to grow sluggish and spend money on lobbyists. Rather than focus on customers, they focus on politics. Politicians always notice noisy interest groups, especially if they get something in return.

In conclusion, Gregg articulates that the losers under protectionist policies are mon American people and that isolation and limitation of the American economy is something “hardly American.”

And who are the biggest losers from these deals? Again, it’s the 325 million American consumers who, unlike businesses, are spread out around the country and don’t have lobbyists.

American patriots should be concerned for the well-being of all Americans. How is it patriotic to favor groups with political connections at the expense of weaker Americans? This means more privileges for the few, and less liberty and justice for all.

And that, to say the least, is hardly American.

To read Gregg’s article, visit The Stream here.

Image: Public Domain

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Close call on CAFTA
Close at Home The House of Representatives voted early this morning (12:03 am) to approve the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) after weeks of intense lobbying on both sides. The final vote was a close 217-215. My predictions: somehow, any dip in employment (if there is one) in the next six months will somehow be linked to CAFTA by its detractors. Detractors will attempt to take the moral high ground in American politics in ’06 and ’08, and even...
Textual interpretation
A week ago Stanley Fish, a law professor at Florida International University, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times about the principles of constitutional interpretation, especially as represented by Justice Antonin Scalia. Fish takes issue especially with the notion that the text can have meaning “as it exists apart from anyone’s intention.” Fish essentially denies that texts are things that can have meanings in themselves, and it amounts to a philosophical denial of realism. Part of Fish’s problem is...
ExTORTion
S. T. Karnick over at The Reform ments on a recent suit filed against DuPont over Teflon, claiming that “DuPont lied in a massive attempt to continue selling their product.” Karnick observes that abuse of the tort system is rampant, in part because “it has been perverted into a proxy for the criminal justice system: a means of punishing supposed wrongdoers through the use of a weaker standard of proof—preponderance of the evidence instead of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”...
Labor unions and free association
The Service Employees International Union and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters have broken away from the plaining that the federation has focused too much on political activism in the face of declining union membership and influence. Dr. Charles Baird was a featured guest on yesterday’s edition of Kresta in the Afternoon on Ave Maria Radio, discussing Catholic perspectives on unionism and whether the modern American labor union movement patible with church teachings. Dr. Baird is Chair of the Department of...
Great debate
Foreign Policy hosts this exchange on environmental issues and economics. Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, gets the first word and Bjørn Lomborg, adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, gets the last word. ...
Animal cruelty?
I’m not quite sure what to make of this local story: “Four people are charged for their alleged involvement in killing two bald eagles.” The details of the alleged crimes are as follows: “Prosecutors say two teenagers shot the eagles in the Muskegon State Game Area with a .22 caliber rifle in April 2004 and then chopped them up with a hatchet.” Since the bald eagle, one of the nation’s revered symbols, is an endangered animal, it is protected by...
Seeing the trees, missing the forest
The United Nations has released a report on the ongoing upheavals in Zimbabwe, where tyrant Robert Mugabe has been punishing his political opponents under the guise of “cleaning up” the country’s cities. The effect of Operation Murambatsvina (meaning either “Operation Restore Order” or “Operation Drive Out Trash,” depending on who’s translation you believe) has been to leave some 700,000 people homeless, jobless, or both. A downloadable copy of the UN report is available here. While the report does illuminate the...
CAFTA/Culture of Life: enemies?
John Paul II gave us all a tremendous gift by endorsing the terms Culture of Life and Culture of Death. But as with all great gifts, we must guard these terms carefully so as not to wear them out with misuse, robbing them of their relevance. Unfortunately, this is precisely what is happening in the current debate over CAFTA. A group called Catholics for Faithful Citizenship (PDF) claims the following: “Clearly, supporting CAFTA is inconsistent with upholding a culture of...
The school of fish
The recent blogpost by my colleague Jordan Ballor discusses an op-ed written by law professor Stanley Fish. I am more familiar with Stanley Fish from his days as a literary theorist, and perhaps a quick review of a younger Fish will contribute to the conversation. Fish is known for, among other things, an idea of literary interpretation he called munities’ that suggests meaning is not found in the author, nor in the reader, but in munity in which the text...
The hermeneutical spiral
Mr. Phelps takes issue with my characterization of Stanley Fish’s position as amounting “to a philosophical denial of realism.” Let me first digress a bit and place ment within the larger context of my post. My identification of a position that “words and texts have no meaning in themselves” is really just an aside within the larger and more important question about what measure of authority authorial intent has in the interpretation of documents, specifically public documents like the Constitution....
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved