The Volokh Conspiracy - Dumb and Dumberer on Trade:

Senators Clinton and Obama have sought to outdo each others' attacks on trade deals. While each may eschew the "protectionist" label, their campaign rhetoric could have consequences. As Rod Hunter warns, "If one of the Democrats wins the White House, he or she may find that the antitrade tirades delivered carelessly this year will, by next, have unleashed protectionist forces not easily controlled."

Senator John McCain's has a fairly free trade reputation, and is among the most pro-trade members of the Senate. This will enable to draw a stark contrast between himself and the Democratic nominee this fall, but trade lobbyist Robert Lighthizer thinks this would be a mistake. Writing in the NYT this week, Lighthizer argues McCain should embrace a pragmatic protectionism. According to Lighthizer, this is the true conservative position on trade, endorsed by many Republican political leaders over the past 150 years.

Daniel Drezner is not impressed with Lighthizer's policy argument, nor his revisionist history of trade policy (and that's putting it nicely). Megan McArdle concurs.

UPDATE: Obama v. Obama on trade. See also here.

UPDATE: The Economist reports on the consequences of protectionist rhetoric.

FOR the United States' two immediate neighbours, the Democratic Party's primary campaign has been an unedifying spectacle. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have tried to outdo each other in blaming the woes of middle America on the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico. Both candidates have called for the agreement to be renegotiated, to insert tougher labour and environmental standards.

To politicians across the borders that looks irresponsible. Since it came into force in 1994, NAFTA has benefited all three economies, raising cross-border trade and investment. That applies especially to Mexico. Not by coincidence, since the signing of NAFTA Mexico has become a democracy and achieved economic stability. This has not halted the flow of migrants to the north. But their numbers would almost certainly have been greater without the agreement—or if its labour clauses were tougher.

	[Jonathan Adler, March 7, 2008 at 7:14pm] Trackbacks Dumb and Dumberer on Trade: Senators Clinton and Obama have sought to outdo each others' attacks on trade deals. While each may eschew the "protectionist" label, their campaign rhetoric could have consequences. As Rod Hunter warns, "If one of the Democrats wins the White House, he or she may find that the antitrade tirades delivered carelessly this year will, by next, have unleashed protectionist forces not easily controlled." Senator John McCain's has a fairly free trade reputation, and is among the most pro-trade members of the Senate. This will enable to draw a stark contrast between himself and the Democratic nominee this fall, but trade lobbyist Robert Lighthizer thinks this would be a mistake. Writing in the NYT this week, Lighthizer argues McCain should embrace a pragmatic protectionism. According to Lighthizer, this is the true conservative position on trade, endorsed by many Republican political leaders over the past 150 years. Daniel Drezner is not impressed with Lighthizer's policy argument, nor his revisionist history of trade policy (and that's putting it nicely). Megan McArdle concurs. UPDATE: Obama v. Obama on trade. See also here. UPDATE: The Economist reports on the consequences of protectionist rhetoric. FOR the United States' two immediate neighbours, the Democratic Party's primary campaign has been an unedifying spectacle. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have tried to outdo each other in blaming the woes of middle America on the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico. Both candidates have called for the agreement to be renegotiated, to insert tougher labour and environmental standards. To politicians across the borders that looks irresponsible. Since it came into force in 1994, NAFTA has benefited all three economies, raising cross-border trade and investment. That applies especially to Mexico. Not by coincidence, since the signing of NAFTA Mexico has become a democracy and achieved economic stability. This has not halted the flow of migrants to the north. But their numbers would almost certainly have been greater without the agreement—or if its labour clauses were tougher.