Isolationism you can’t afford
posted at 9:30 am on May 28, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Asia edition of the Wall Street Journal rips Barack Obama’s efforts to block the US-South Korea free-trade agreement today. The editors openly wonder whether Obama has bothered to read the agreement, noting that he seems ignorant of several of its provisions, as well as lacking understanding of the benefit to American consumers and manufacturers. They conclude that Obama is “the most protectionist U.S. presidential candidate in decades”:
Here’s one “change” presidential candidate Barack Obama apparently believes in: higher prices. Witness his letter last week urging President George W. Bush not to submit the U.S.-South Korea free-trade agreement to Congress for ratification.
Mr. Obama’s objection, as stated in his letter, is that the deal “would give Korean exports essentially unfettered access to the U.S. market and would eliminate our best opportunity for obtaining genuinely reciprocal market access in one of the world’s largest economies.” In other words, ordinary American consumers would get too good a deal.
Except that the agreement actually does require reciprocity. The removal of tariffs on automobiles, which Obama specifies in his letter, is contingent on Seoul not just removing their own tariffs (three times higher than ours) but also dismantling its protectionist “safety” requirements. Failure to comply with both would result in a reimposition of American tariffs on goods from South Korea.
The net result of the free-trade agreement is lower prices in the US for South Korean goods, and a free market for American manufacturers to enter in South Korea. Despite Obama’s populist rhetoric during this campaign, free market agreements with responsible democracies result in economic growth for both partners. While the agreements with China may need further review, those treaties with other democracies have boosted jobs and growth here and abroad.
Obama’s protectionism is exactly the wrong prescription for a nation concerned about economic growth and stability. We need to open markets to American goods, and the only way to do that effectively is to reduce and eliminate trade barriers with our allies. In Colombia and South Korea, we can create those markets and grow jobs domestically as a result. Obama wants to follow the Herbert Hoover path and return to Smoot-Hawley protectionism.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
I already knew Europe was nervous about BO’s anti-trade policies; now Asia is expressing concern.
A BO presidency will make the world say, “Come back, W! We decided we love you after all.”
jgapinoy on May 28, 2008 at 9:39 AM
This man is totally clueless! Clueless about foreign policy, clueless about economics, clueless about the forming of this country and the laws that protect our freedoms….. totally clueless!
kcd on May 28, 2008 at 9:42 AM
Sounds like the same song and dance as with the Columbian trade agreement. It’s too good a deal for the hoi poloi for Dems to allow it to go forward.
Akzed on May 28, 2008 at 9:43 AM
This is a great debate to have in a presidential campaign. Do we negotiate with terrorists who are building nuclear weapons and threatening annihilation of our allies, but not with peaceful nations that want more trade with us that will result in more jobs and lower prices?
rockmom on May 28, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Never fear. The really important folks like Hamas, Fidel, and Iran think he’s A-O.K.
a capella on May 28, 2008 at 9:44 AM
The opposition to the agreement is also strong in Korea — the media and other left wing hacks love to poison the Korean people to the point where their arguments against free trade amount to “the US is trying to take us over!!” All the while, the same fools want to reunify with North Korea, which is completely impossible with several million brain-washed zealots who think Kim Il Sung is still alive.
Others are worried about mad cow disease, even though there are no known cases of mad cow in Korea — leave it to the dingbat media there to sensationalize and hyperventilate, which is really a smokescreen for their anti-Americanism.
I routinely ask my Korean friends: “Where would you be today if you weren’t liberated from the invading North Korean armies in 1950-53?” It never seems to resonate much with them that 60,000 Americans died keeping them free…a price they can never repay; all we ask for is a stronger friendship democratically and economically, which helps us both…why doesn’t this get through their thick skulls? Alas, my answer has to do with irrational anti-Americanism, nothing more.
This is an important free trade deal — I hope it goes through.
Richard Romano on May 28, 2008 at 9:46 AM
These are the areas where we should be focusing our stand against Obama, Ed.
More please.
12thman on May 28, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Panderer-in-chief who appears to be harsher on our allies than our adversaries.
As the saying goes, “It may be unwise to be an enemy of the US (it’s okay though, we’ll talk); but it can be deadly to be her friend”.
SteveMG on May 28, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Heh. All of a piece.
Colombian goods already enter the US freely; the new agreement is to let American goods enter Colombia on the same basis, which would employ more Americans. Pelosi and Reid say No!, and everybody cheers.
This is the same thing. The Asian Tigers have been selling to us from behind protectionist walls, and we’ve been patient about it, agreeing that they could build up their own economies and industry and we would wait for that. Now it’s time for us to convince them to lower those walls, and the new agreements do that — and the Democrats say No!, and everybody cheers.
Isolationism, jingoism (negative this time), racism, and destruction. Just the Democratic Party returning to its roots; nothing to see here, folks, move along…
Regards,
Ric
warlocketx on May 28, 2008 at 9:51 AM
The more I hear coming from this empty suit, the more I am convinced the communities he organized in and around Chicago must be in complete disarray.
fogw on May 28, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Even the Goreacle knew about Smoot-Hawley.
But not this messiah.
drjohn on May 28, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Obama has the mentality and knowledge level of a college junior.
forest on May 28, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Even without reciprocity, opening markets is always a good thing.
MarkTheGreat on May 28, 2008 at 9:59 AM
That’s what we can depend on with the first Affirmative Action candidate.
Are we really sure we want to help this guy win POTUS? He and the dems might just leave us with zero allies and trading partners in the world.
techno_barbarian on May 28, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Barack is basically dancing with the ones he brung, which means he was propelled to his pending primary victory by the left of the Democratic Party, and those are the people he’s going to listen to for advice.
The problem is when you even look at the for public consumption record of Clinton and even Carter during the 1992 and 1976 campaigns, you can see they were specifically running campaigns that downplayed any excess influence by the left wing of the party, because of the public’s distrust of their policies. You really have to go back to LBJ in 1964 to find the last candidate on the Democratic side who unashamedly ran on liberal social and economic policies, and even then, the left boiled at hatred for him, because Johnson had usurped the Massachusetts Mafia (before there ever was the claims on the left that “Bush Knew” about Sept. 11 in advance, there were the claims that “LBJ Knew” about the Kennedy assassination in advance).
Clinton was smart enough to get the left to shut up during the ‘92 campaign about what they really wanted to do if Bill was elected. This year, the left is so mad at both Bush and Hillary, so enraptured with Obama and so confident of victory in November, that they have no fear of letting Barack spout the most inane economic or military policies and think only evil Bush-Clinton-McCain right wingers would oppose them.
jon1979 on May 28, 2008 at 10:15 AM
My question is who the heck is feeding B.O. all this claptrap and why doesn’t B.O. have the common sense to question the claptrap he is being fed?
If he is making the bozo bucket mistakes he is making right now, what the heck is he going to do if he is elected President, when these exact same mistakes can then do some really serious damage?
pilamaye on May 28, 2008 at 10:17 AM
That’s a very good summary of where Obama stands.
logis on May 28, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Don’t forget Oprah…
voiceofreason on May 28, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Obama is going to find out that there is not a majority in this country that favors isolation and protectionism. Bill Clinton knew that and it is a big reason why he was the only Democrat since Roosevelt who was elected twice. But the Democratic base thinks Clinton was a sellout and they have to “rescue” their party from his influence. This is turning into McGovern vs. Nixon real fast.
rockmom on May 28, 2008 at 10:29 AM
And in so doing, they expose themselves openly which will have the effect of allowing even closet-dem like McC to defeat them, driving the radical left past the brink and discrediting them completely.
If the dems lose this one, their party completely implodes. Many good things flow from such a scenario. We still have to fight McCain at every step of the way, but hopefully there will be a great deal less Obambi dem candidates and many more Blue Dogs. I’d rather see the dems come back with Blue Dogs than marxists.
I’m advocating for a defeat of the marxists this November. I think it’s the wisest course at this time in history.
techno_barbarian on May 28, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Obambi will have his strings pulled by the CPUSA (Communist Party of the USA). Everything in his background points to it.
techno_barbarian on May 28, 2008 at 10:33 AM
All I know is that I look forward to paying $35 for a t-shirt.
I also have high hopes for the recovery of the covered-wagon industry; those people once had good paying jobs too, you know.
DFL walls everywhere you look, except for the southern border.
Bishop on May 28, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Well, when 34% of entrants to the SK military academy think the US is their enemy, it’s hardly surprising that many South Koreans think so little of us. Which, of course, makes us wonder what the hell we are doing there protecting such ungrateful people ignorant of their own history (and our part in it). While the US does not deserve Obama as its president, the South Koreans certainly do.
RickZ on May 28, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Has an Obama aide contacted the CEO of Hyundai to tell him that this is just campaign rhetoric, and ignore it, like he did for the Canadians about NAFTA?
Steve Z on May 28, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Can’t be. BO is going to make the world like us again by throwing the Iraqis to the wolves and making nice-nice with terrorists.
Kafir on May 28, 2008 at 10:48 AM
So this is how the Obamassiah intends to win friends and influence countries around the world: by engaging in closing the US market to other countries and raising prices here at home. Ah, but sitting down to a face-to-face meeting with the leader of Iran is going to do so much more than growing economies in Columbia and South Korea and elsewhere.
Can’t wait to see McCain bodyslam him on this in the debates.
rbj on May 28, 2008 at 10:48 AM
All of this complaining about Obama’s ignorance and cluelessness is doing nothing to help Michelle’s children.
Shame on you.
Wanderlust on May 28, 2008 at 10:55 AM
By the same token, if McCain loses, I think there will be a pretty big shake-up of the Republican Party too. The difference is that we have a core of conservatives currently out in the cold who would (hopefully) be willing to provide leadership.
But the Democrats have the opposite problem: instead of their philosophical leaders being too institutionally lazes faire, the fringe left have a deathgrip on their Party.
So if it’s the Democrat Party that implodes, the fringe left will be the only ones to blame. And there won’t be anyone on that side capable of picking up the pieces.
I’m afraid that’s a lost cause. McCain spat in the face of conservatives even while the freakin’ Republican Primary was going on. If he wins the national election after doing that, there is slightly less than zero chance he’ll move to the right after he’s in office – no matter what we do.
logis on May 28, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Every time I hear Sen. Obama open his mouth about economic issue the more convinced I am he is completely clueless on the subject and needs to go back to school before running as President.
JeffinSac on May 28, 2008 at 11:21 AM
The Asian edition? Now I wonder if that is merely coincidence. Probably not.
The Wall $treet Journal? The same Wall $treet Journal that likes “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” and Z-Visas? Yup, I think it’s the same one. So we should surely listen to their wise and unbiased council and probably just go with that.
Benefit to American consumers and manufacturers? Ya, that makes sense. About half the manufactured goods in the stores right now are “Made in China” or “Assembled in America” (but “Made in China”), so why not have the other half “Made in Korea” or “Assembled in America” (but “Made in Korea”)? Then we wouldn’t have to bother to manufacture anything at all. Such a deal! No, we should probably still manufacture military equipment I would think. No, might as well have all that “Made in China” or “Made in Korea” too then we could all just be patrons or service workers.
MB4 on May 28, 2008 at 11:51 AM
I’m a fence-rider when it comes to free trade, but I think this one needs to go forward. This agreement would give us a little bit of leverage with regard to China.
“Hey ChiComs! Float your currency and be nice to dissidents, or we’ll buy our cheap lead-painted toys from your neighbor!”
innominatus on May 28, 2008 at 12:58 PM
I don’t think Obama is so much “pro-protectionism” as he is “anti-commerce.”
Marxists have always been repulsed by the profit motive – they’re only satisfied when people simply accept the directives of the Marxists instead of having their own motivations.
Merovign on May 28, 2008 at 1:46 PM
There is emerging pattern here. Obama works to defeat the Columbian free tree agreement while one of his staffers talks to the FARC. Now he wants to defeat an agreement with the ROK. Add his desire to make nice with the Iranians and thee is only one conclusion possible. He sees the Mullahs, Chavez and Kim as friends to be cultivated at the expense of traditional US allies.
jerryofva on May 28, 2008 at 2:15 PM
As he is “in the tank” with Venezuela, he must be “in the
tank” with North Korea.
gary on May 28, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Comment pages: