It’s a protectionist, protectionist, protectionist protectionist world

One could argue that, since John Edwards leaned more protectionist than John Kerry during the primaries, that Kerry’s selection for veep shows how illiberal a Kerry administration would be towards trade. It’s a thought that certainly gives me qualms. Until I contemplate the Bush administration. Back in September 2003, I wrote:

The most likely outcome [for trade policy] for the next 18 months is a policy of “hypocritical liberalization.” The Doha round will proceed, as will the Middle East Free Trade Area. But the administration will take advantage of every exception, escape clause, and loophole at its disposal to protect vital constituencies from the vicissitudes of the global market. This will hurt the broad majority of American consumers and a healthy share of producers that rely on imported raw materials.

Last month I said why I didn’t think this would change. Today, Steve Chapman’s column in the Chicago Tribune unfortunately provides further confirmation of this hypothesis:

Do you like shrimp but wish it cost more? Need some bedroom furniture but hate getting a good deal on it? If so, you’re very different from most Americans. You are, however, one of the few people who can rejoice in our national trade policies. Politicians know that consumers in this country are more than happy to buy foreign goods if the quality is sufficient and the price is right. They also know that explicit efforts to shut out imports are usually political fool’s gold, more likely to bring defeat than victory at the polls. So how can our leaders cater to corporate executives and workers who resent competition, without looking like hidebound protectionists? Simple: They don’t attack trade–they attack “dumping.” When it comes to trade, many Americans cherish the notion that we are victims of our innocent good-heartedness. In this picture, we’re always being cynically exploited by underhanded foreigners while our own companies play by the rules. The laws against dumping are supposed to correct the problem by banning any imports that are sold below “fair value,” a baffling concept understood by bureaucrats but not economists. The Bush administration made use of the law this week when it proposed slapping shrimp producers from China and Vietnam with special import duties of up to 113 percent. Earlier, it had imposed such tariffs on wooden bedroom furniture from China. It’s also taken steps toward similar action on all sorts of foreign items, including lumber from Canada, aluminum from South Africa and steel wire strand from South Korea. A spokeswoman for the Commerce Department’s International Trade Administration, when asked how many anti-dumping orders are currently in effect, responds as though I’ve invited her to count all the cactuses in Arizona. She can’t come up with a tally on short notice but says the number is “in the hundreds, maybe more than hundreds.” And that’s not including all the ones that are pending. For an administration that boasts of its devotion to tax cuts, these efforts represent an unnoticed and unwarranted tax increase, which will come out of the pockets of American manufacturers, retailers and consumers. It’s also a violation of President Bush’s supposed faith in free trade, which he touts as a contrast to Democrats who believe that, in his words, “the solution to jobs uncertainty is to isolate America from the world.”

Read the whole thing. UPDATE: On the other hand, here’s a story where mercantilists and free-traders can be pleased at the outcome.