I have written quite a bit about the protectionism of the right, however, except for Obama's threat to unilaterally renegotiate NAFTA, I have largely ignored the protectionism of the left. In some ways this is understandable, as protectionism is protectionism, the bad arguments of the right are usually the same as the bad arguments of the left. And while the right has recently been in the forefront of arguing for trade restrictions to "preserve jobs", the bad economic theories are much the same on right and left. The left may slightly favor the Keynesian deficit spending arguments while the right prefers the neo-mercantilist arguments of old time Republicans of the 19th century, but overall there is little difference.

So, if my arguments against protectionism apply equally to the right and left, then why am I bothering to write about this again? Because, oddly enough, I am seeing protectionist arguments, and protectionist logic, appearing in unusual contexts, being used to argue for other popular left wing causes, such as Obama's massive bailout, cap and trade and opposition to tax cuts. So, in hopes of convincing a few on the right that supporting protectionism is a self-defeating proposition for conservatives, I want to show how the logic of protectionism leads, inexorably, to many left wing policies.

For example, Senator John Kerry, in arguing for Obama supposed "stimulus bill", and implicitly against most tax cuts, said:

I have heard a lot of talk about we ought to do a tax cut, we ought to do a tax cut.  I have supported many tax cuts during my years here, and there are tax cuts in this proposal.  But a tax cut is non-targeted.  If you put a tax cut into the hands of either a business or an individual today, there is no guarantee they are going to invest their money.  There is no guarantee that they are going to invest their money in the United States.  They are free to go to invest anywhere they want, if they choose to invest. … The fact is none of those people are guaranteed to invest that money in any of the new projects that we are.  So government yes government has the ability to be able to make a decision that the private sector won’t necessarily make today.

What makes this interesting, at least as interesting as any John Kerry quote can conceivably be, is that, rather than the usual class warfare rhetoric used to justify maintaining high taxes, Kerry chooses to use a combination of protectionism and condescension, arguing that people who get tax cuts are not just too stupid to invest, but also, even when they invest, too stupid to keep the money in the US.

The logic of protectionism is basically this, that people are too foolish to know what is in their best interest, or that they are immoral and will place their own interests above that of their nation (and that in doing so they will harm the nation). It is the same logic as the Kerry comment. And, if we accept the logic of the protectionists, then we must also accept the logic of the protectionists, that pursuing individual interests somehow weakens the nation, and so people must be coerced to do what is right for the nation rather than themselves. They cannot be trusted with their own money, as they may pursue their own ends, and not the ends we think best for the nation.

The point being that right-leaning protectionism, like that on the left, as well as every other interventionist scheme, assumes there is a difference between the individual's desires and the goals of the state. Where I see the state as a tool instituted to protect rights, with no other goals, the protectionists and interventionists see the state as a tool for correcting the mistaken desires of individuals, a means to make them do the "right thing". What that specific "right thing" might be differs, but once you admit the state has the right to coerce individuals into doing the right thing, then what argument could you have with those making the same argument with different ends?

POSTSCRIPT

The following articles cover nearly everything I have written on protectionism: "Exploiting Workers?", "Protectionism", "The World's Oldest Myth", "Beware Populist Deception", "Fear of Trade", "Misplaced Blame and A Power Play", "Remember I Predicted It", "More Proponents of Protectionism", "Smaller Government , Fair Weather Friends and Special Cases", "Cheap Lighters, Overseas Dumping and Monopolies", "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, and More Jobs", "Capital Investment", "Clarfiying My Argument", "Exploited Labor", "Has No One Heard Of Lord Say?"

The following cover most of my writing about liberal condescension, and the relationship between a negative view of humanity and interventionist politics: "Our View of Our Fellow Citizens", "Those Other People", "Seeing People As Stupid", "The Virtue of Humility", "Lying Politicians and "Other People"", "Two Kinds of Liberal", "The Citizen Dichotomy", "Inescapable Logic", "Smaller Government , Fair Weather Friends and Special Cases", "Fairness and the Free Market", "Eurocentrism? Racism? Liberal Traits All", "Government as Indulgent Parent", "Nuclear Disarmament and Gun Control ", "Some Libertarian Analogies", "Apology as Arrogance", "The Intellectual Elite", "Trusting Mankind", "Appealing to Arrogance"

Finally, I would recommend reading the following to understand my perspective on the proper role of government:  "Monetary Issues Made Simple Part I", "Monetary Issues Made Simple Part II", "My Vision of Government", "My Vision of Government Part II", "Planning For Imperfection", "Inescapable Logic", "Subsidizing Irresponsibility and Poor Planning", "Transparency, Corruption and Reform",  "Absolute Values", "Looking at Foreign Aid", "Below His Pay Grade", "What We Deserve". There is also a good list of articles in the postscript to the post "Revisiting Gay Marriage". And, the three best short summaries of my thinking "My Entire Philosophy", "An Analogy For Government" and "Something We Forget ".

As much of the protectionist argument is couched in terms of "pragmatic activity" as opposed to "theory", I would also recommend reading "The Shortcomings of Pragmatism" and "Pragmatism Revisited", for a refutation of the entire concept of "pragmatism", at least a s apolitical philosophy.

I am sure there are other relevant essays, for example both "When Help Hurts" and "The Limits of "Scientific" Management", as well as "The Endless Cycle of Intervention" and "A Reason to be Afraid", describe quite well why the state cannot manage economic matter effectively, but to list them all would bloat this terribly, so I will simply end the list here.

POSTSCRIPT II

This same logic also applies to those who would use the state to improve the morals of individuals. Obviously the state can easily "legislate morality" in any case where it involves the violation of another's rights. The statement "the state can't legislate morality" is absurd, as prohibiting murder is legislating morality. What they mean is the state cannot legislate morality where another's rights are not involved. I would argue that the state CAN legislate morality, but it is an improper use of state power, and opens the door to other, more expansive, abuses of state power. (For a bit more on this see my posts "The State and Morality", "A Bit More Explanation", "The Need to Correct Ourselves", "Please Stop Calling Them Conservatives", and "Why I am a Republican".)