The definition of free trade extremism

In the last POLITICAL UPDATE, I referred to some of the "conservative" supporters of the port deal as "free trade extremists." This is my term, so it may not have been clear what I meant.

I recognize that many of our members are Buchanan-style protectionists. My view is somewhat different. I generally support free trade as long as it does not conflict with national security.

A free-trade extremist, however, supports free trade no matter what. A perfect example is Larry Kudlow. At first, it appeared that his most recent column would attempt to actually defend that deal, rather than just call all its' critics racists, like his previous column.

Larry just can't understand why anyone would think there are security problems with this deal. What about the UAE's previous recognition of the Taliban? What about their ties to terrorists? As Phyllis Schlafly points out, "The fact that the UAE has been helpful in some respects since Sept. 11 does not trump the facts that two of the Sept. 11 hijackers came from the UAE and some money to finance the terrorists attacks was laundered through that country's banking system. Dubai was the main transshipment point for the Pakistani nuclear engineer who ran the world's largest nuclear proliferation ring and shipped equipment to enrich uranium from there to Libya, Iran and North Korea."

This is what I mean by free trade extremism: "In fact, the Bush administration’s plan to create a U.S. free-trade zone across the Middle East is one of the most positive initiatives in the effort to defeat fundamentalist Islamic terrorism." Don't worry! Free trade will solve everything! How exactly a free-trade zone will thwart Osama isn't clear. Perhaps Larry is buying into the liberal myth that terrorism is caused by poverty rather than Islamic ideology.

He continues: "Let’s not forget that the UAE in the post-9/11 world has become a strong American ally." As opposed to pre-9/11, when they were recognizing the Taliban. If they can switch, they can switch back. An alliance based on self-interest is different than an alliance based on shared values.

And then there's this: "Yes, DP World is a state-owned enterprise, but if that criteria were used to oppose an economic relationship, we’d have to terminate all activity with communist China and state-owned oil companies in Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, and Mexico."

I can't believe he actually wrote this. Can he really not see any difference between buying oil from a state-run company, and letting a state-run company manage our ports? Two words: NATIONAL SECURITY. As libertarian congressman Ron Paul, who is certainly no protectionist, points out, governments serve their own interests. We can't count on the UAE to do what is best for us.

There are currently private companies helping to supply our troops in Iraq. Would Kudlow let foreign governments run this too? If not, why not?

In Larry's mind, critics of this deal are secretly motivated by protectionism. This is strange considering that of the three critics he names, only Buchanan is clearly a protectionist. Malkin has written extensively on the deal and never once argued that the deal would be bad for our economy.

Apparently, all the secret protectionists are secretly racist, too: "Whether it’s anti-Arab Islamophobia..." (is there pro-Arab Islamophobia?) "... or anti-Mexican Hispanophobia,..." This is a new one. What about national-security-o-phobia? What about not-making-up-stupid-words-o-phobia? "...the fear-mongers in the conservative ranks do not truly believe in economic opportunity."

Ah, the poor downtrodden governments of the world, yearning for economic opportunity! Even assuming that this deal economically benefits the Emirates, what's good about that? Since when have conservatives wanted governments to have more money? Richer governments hurt, rather than help, their citizens.

Conservatives should know better than to trust someone who supports free trade at all costs, and accuses all critics of racism.