A candidate's stance on trade is predictive of whether he, once elected, will put facts and principle before politics and self-interest. Politicians who reject protectionism turn down eager corporate and union campaign donations from unseemly rent-seekers trying to thwart international competition at the expense of American families and companies.Be sure to read the extremely detailed support for my conclusions here.
They ignore demagogic attacks on their patriotism. And they openly support policies which, despite their overwhelming economic and historical support, are met with public hostility or disinterest and an unethical opposition willing to take full advantage thereof.
On the other hand, politicians who peddle protectionism are either ignorant of history and economics or are willing to discard their conservative ideals and prey on voter fears for short-term political advantage.
Sen. Santorum's record shows that he understands the costs of protectionism but is perfectly willing to impose them when his cronies stand to benefit. Such "political protectionism" not only is not "conservative," but also raises serious — indeed disqualifying — doubts as to the candidate's fitness as a leader and public servant.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
New Op-ed: Rick Santorum's "Disqualifying Political Protectionism"
In today's Investor's Business Daily, I argue in a new op-ed that, based on his congressional record on trade, "true conservative" GOP Presidential Candidate Sen. Rick Santorum is anything but conservative. Here's the thrilling conclusion: