Most noteworthy Republican officeholders have indeed embraced Donald Trump — some early on in the process and some only at the end; some out of opportunism and others out of a sense of duty to their party. But aside from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who offered Trump’s nomination on Tuesday evening, there are precious few who have shown much interest or enthusiasm for his economic ideas.
By the time the second night of the Republican convention in Cleveland had ended, Sessions remained the only Republican lawmaker, and apparently the only speaker period, to talk about Trump’s anti-trade ideology at all.
Throughout the campaign, Trump has repeatedly claimed that America “doesn’t win anymore,” in part because its trade agreements have been incompetently negotiated against Americans’ interests. Mexico and China, he has argued, have built up their economies by taking advantage of U.S. leaders’ incompetence. To be sure, no trade deal is ever perfect for everyone, but his position on this issue — which aligns more closely with the Democrats’ than with Republican opinion — flies in the face not only of Republican orthodoxy, but of the near-unanimous opinion of economists.
Given the sharply different direction in which Trump wants to take the party, it is noteworthy that this is one area where he hasn’t pulled it very far. Aside from Sessions, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was the only other speaker even to mention China, and that was in the context of a “Buy American” provision in President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package. The only mention of Mexico, outside the context of border security, came on Monday night from the wife of Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wis., who was lightly booed when she mentioned her parents had come from there.
The fact that anti-trade hysteria hasn’t rippled through the ranks of Republican officeholders or reared its ugly head at this already-wild convention bodes well for the hopes of the post-Trump GOP. We have warned on many occasions that the stifling of trade through misguided protectionism is not a solution to any of America’s economic problems. But it is also not a recipe for Republican victory.
Today, millions of Americans work for foreign companies, and they have international trade to thank for that. Millions more work in jobs directly or indirectly supported by exports. All Americans pay less for the everyday goods they use, and they have trade to thank for that as well.
It has been much remarked that Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, Trump’s running mate, was strongly in favor of free trade, at least right up until he accepted Trump’s invitation. It isn’t just because of conservative ideology — it’s because free trade has been a boon for his state, where agricultural exports thrive alongside large manufacturing operations run by companies like Subaru and Toyota. And Indiana is just one of 50 states where this is the case.
Free trade is often politically controversial because the expansion of competition does not guarantee victory for all competitors. Its benefits reach many more people, but its drawbacks tend to concentrate in certain industries and with certain companies. This is why Hillary Clinton, under pressure from left-wing voters, chickened out on the issue earlier this year, reversing her long-held position.
Republicans need to stand strong and keep in place the party’s long-held position on open international trade. History has shown that no nation can freeze its economy in place for a few workers by shielding them from competition without making everyone else poorer. Whenever the age of Trump ends — be it eight years or just four months from now — America will still need an alternative to the Democrats’ long-debunked ideas in this area.
