Those who believe in a greater level of government intrusion in trade and the economy often don the cloak of economic nationalism, using the specter of some economic bogeyman waiting in the closet to sentence us to commercial servitude.  Believing that the government knows better than individuals what products should be made available in the marketplace, that American companies should be protected from competition, and that greater efficiency and productivity are a net negative to the quality of life, the protectionists conjure up images of shuttered factories and abject poverty to justify higher taxation and regulation of the American economy.  Phrases like "fair trade" and "level the playing field" are used to suggest that the government's purpose is not to protect liberty but rather to ensure that individuals make the "right" decisions, to decide winners and losers in the commercial marketplace.  They suggest that American companies can't compete without some sort of big government solution that raises prices and restricts choices for consumers.

Currently, the economic bogeyman of choice is the People's Republic of China.  Capitalizing on recent examples of poor quality control on some products carrying a "made in China" label, particularly public health concerns regarding imported toys,  the threat of Chinese domination is a favorite of the intrusive-government protectionists.  Using the so-called "trade deficit" as a starting point (typically a meaningless parameter, as detailed in previous Semper Libertas entries), the managed-trade aficionados paint a dire picture of a Chinese economy growing relentlessly, soon to eclipse that of the United States..  Along the road to economic superiority, the Chinese military machine will begin to eclipse American military might, so the narrative goes.  No longer possessed of either economic or military superiority, America would end up relegated to near-Third World status.  A dire, shocking picture indeed, and one no patriotic American could support.

The picture changes, however, when one leaves behind emotion and begins collecting facts.  According to the CIA World Fact Book, the estimated 2007 Chinese and American Gross Domestic Products (GDP) are $2.879 trillion and $13.75 trillion, respectively.  The Chinese economy (as is common in "developing" or "emerging" economies) has been growing like gangbusters -- growth of over 11% is estimated for 2007 and is forecast to average 7.5% over the period 2006-2010.  Compare that to the conservative forecast for GDP growth in the United States of approximately 2.5%.

Based on both countries maintaining those rates of growth for the foreseeable future, the Chinese economy would surpass that of the USA in ... 32 years.  Keep in mind that even this three-decade sprint is dependent on the Chinese GDP continuing at a blistering pace and the American economic growth estimated in a fairly conservative manner (average economic growth in the United States since 1948 is 3.1%).  So in a near-worst case scenario, it would take three decades for the Chinese economy to catch the American economy in terms of size.  How many forecasts for three decades hence are believable?  It would seem that the economic threat posed by the People's Republic of China is dramatically overstated.

But what about military spending?  The protectionists are saying that the Chinese are using all the gains from the supposed "trade surplus" they run to increase their military.  Seems scary indeed, until once again emotion is replaced with fact.  Again consulting the CIA World Fact Book reveals that currently the Chinese spend approximately 4.3% of GDP, while the military budget of the US is approximately 4.06%.  Assume then that both the Chinese government and the American government maintain the same level of military spending relative to GDP over the course of the 32 years it would take for their economy to catch ours in our worst-case scenario:  over that 32 years, the US will have spent nearly $12 trillion more on its military than will China!  Suppose the USA becomes more parsimonious and trims its military budget to 3% of GPD:  we're still outspending over the 32 year period of $4.6 trillion.  That's a lot of tanks, soldiers, defense systems, etc.  That's a big step towards continuing military supremacy.

Of course, continued trade with China would dampen the military threat even more:  rarely do countries choose to make war with their best customers.  A global economy based on trade and commerce encourages peace and prosperity, disincentivizing war.  Those who would advocate isolating the American economy from the rest of the world in the name of security would actually be promoting a less secure America instead.  Those who advocate a greater intrusion of government in the marketplace to "protect" American businesses would be promoting a less prosperous America instead.

Let's let facts prevail over emotion in the debate over trade and commerce.  "Fair trade" is when consenting parties engage in a peaceable, voluntary exchange absent from fraud or coercion.  Government should be protecting individuals against that fraud or coercion, and does so best by reducing its interference in the marketplace.

The 2008 elections have been noteworthy on many fronts.  We've seen the front-loading of primaries, creating a stampeding sprint for delegates.  The Democratic nominee will either be a woman or an African-American man, either of which being obviously a first for a major party.  The collapse of a Republican front runner shows the importance of strategy, tactics, and momentum -- even trumping vision, leadership, message, and money.  The coronation of Hillary Clinton became a real battle.

One of the more astonishing items of this campaign season, however, has not involved candidates, issues, or the political process, but rather has been the impotence of something that has been a strong influence in American politics over the past 15-17 years:  conservative talk radio.  Conservative heavyweights such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Laura Ingraham, who flexed their collective muscles to great effect in defeating the Dubai Ports deal and last year's immigration reform movement, have found their power severely lacking when focused on influencing the choice of the Republican nominee.  Their respective responses have been nearly identical:  they've gotten increasingly shrill and combative, unraveling into ever-increasing hyperbole, paranoia, and half-truths.

The first test of the radio talkers' influence occurred following the rise of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in the Iowa Caucuses.  Breaking through all the so-called "conventional wisdom", Huckabee won the Caucuses with neither of the previously unanimously-proclaimed necessities:  money and organization.  On a shoestring budget, buoyed by oddities such as a "floating cross" controversy and Chuck Norris endorsement, and espousing a strange brew of leftist populism mixed with Evangelical social conservatism, Huckabee suddenly became a perceived threat.  The response was a flurry of criticism, a public feud with Rush Limbaugh, and backhanded "fair and balanced" treatment from Sean Hannity.  The criticism of Gov. Huckabee is well-deserved:  his class warfare, us-vs.-them rhetoric, and disdain for free market capitalism sounds like it comes straight from the Democratic playbook.  It seems a safe bet that he'll have no Nobel Laureate economists signing on to his platform.

But despite this barrage of negativity, Huckabee's campaign persevered and proceeded to a solid showing in the South in Super Tuesday balloting.  The effect:  one-half of a probable mortal blow to the candidacy of Mitt Romney, the de facto (although unstated in categorical terms) choice of Messrs. Hannity and Rush (following the exit of former Mayor Giuliani and former Senator Fred Thompson) and Ms. Ingraham (following the exit of the previous object of her unstated endorsement, Duncan Hunter, himself of dubious economic policy).  While Huckabee is seemingly mathematically eliminated from becoming the Republican nominee barring the struck-by-lightning chance of a brokered convention, his victories across the South came in areas that would have to be considered the breadbasket of conservative talk radio support.  The would-be kingmakers of the AM dial proved powerless in derailing his candidacy.

The scorn engendered by Huckabee pales in comparison, however, to that inspired by Arizona Senator John McCain.  Long a foil of the conservative right, McCain, like Huckabee, is the legitimate source of much intellectually honest reprobation.  McCain's eponymous legislative endeavors have largely been to expand the role of government:  McCain-Feingold eviscerated the First Amendment in the pursuit of "campaign finance reform"; McCain-Liebermann would usher in expansive government control over the energy sector in the name of fighting "man-made global warming"; McCain-Kennedy was a boondoggle of giveaway programs to illegal immigrants.  He fought the Bush tax cuts using leftist rhetoric (although now supports extending them).  His record on pro-growth, free market economics is mixed at best.  His willingness to pursue statist "solutions" to problems is certainly troublesome to limited government, liberty-minded individuals.

If Huckabee's so-called "boomlet" aggravated the mavens of conservative talk radio, the rise of McCain from nearly dead politically last summer to nearly unstoppably presumptive Republican nominee has infuriated them.  McCain's hard-fought victories in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida pointed towards huge momentum going into Super Tuesday.  Ingraham's response was a rant against "the establishment" and so-called "elites" at the Republican National Committee and elsewhere who were supposedly controlling the process.  Railing against the unseen straw men and assuming an aura of toughness, she vowed not to "let them" silence her.  She took statements by fellow host Michael Medved (himself a more moderate Republican who has endorsed McCain) out of context and suggested that supporters of McCain were trying to intimidate and silence his critics.  Rush, already having engaged in a public spat with Huckabee, suggested that perhaps there wasn't enough difference between McCain and the eventual Democratic nominee to make it worth voting in November for conservatives.  Hannity responded by turning on the pro-Romney offensive.  As polls continued to point towards a McCain ascendancy, the vitriol increased, each host turning his or her show into a near-constant anti-McCain scree. 

The result is that McCain's emergence has plunged three heretofore influential alternative media moguls into near apoplexy.  It seems unclear which they understand less -- McCain's popularity among primary voters, or their collective inability to influence the process.  They seem to be ignoring the history of the Republican nomination process:  the "establishment" candidate almost always wins; the GOP typically honors the "next in line".

Conservative talk radio hosts have been a huge force in promoting the Republican Party, as evidenced by Democratic efforts to emulate them (via Air America) and to consider using the power of the government against them (through re-enactment of Free Speech restraints via the "fairness doctrine").  In a classic case of hubris, however, they have overestimated their strength, and as a result are getting put back in place.  At some point, will the McCain and Huckabee voters realize that the ultimate insult is to them?  If the audience for these hosts erodes, that would seem to be at least part of the underlying reason.