Free-Traders Admit That They're Wrong

Well, not exactly, but they are now making arguments that would guarantee their political defeat. No longer do they, in the face of unrelievedly bad news for America on the trade front, argue that free-trade is good for the country; they now argue that it's good for the world - and who cares about the country! Arnold Kling refers to such quaint concerns - like whether it's good for America - as "Economic Nationalism." In his latest post on this theme, Arnold's fellow traveler Don Boudreaux pretty much lets the cat out of the bag with this comment:

Suppose someone calculates trade statistics for the town that Arnold lives in, and suppose that those statistics show that that town has a trade surplus...why should Arnold care more about the nation than he cares about his town? What is so right, so obvious, or so noble about someone who lives in Maryland giving as much weight to the fortunes of people in Oregon and Florida as he gives to the fortunes of people in his local community?

See where this is going - here's the coup de grace:

And what's so wrong about someone who gives as much weight to the fortunes of strangers living in foreign lands as he gives to the fortunes of strangers living in his own country?

I wonder how many pro-free-trade politicians realize the un-American turn free-trade arguments have taken? Are they aware that the viewpoints espoused by the "thinkers" who have given them academic cover in supporting free trade now profess to be unconcerned about its impact on the Americans they represent? But then again, as with immigration or our continued military involvement in Iraq, the worse something is for the U.S. the less likely are politicians to oppose it.