There is perhaps no better litmus test, in my view, than free trade to judge how"good" a politician is on liberty today. I should say for the record that several folks have made the case to me that Second Amendment rights are the most important test for liberty among public officials. I respect that position, but believe that free trade shows that an individual understands the economic arguments that folks like Smith have been advocating for hundreds of years. Like the right to bear arms, it's also an unpopular position today but has tremendous benefits for society as well as the individual. So my question is simple. Who is George Bush when it comes to trade? Were the steel tariffs simply an election year compromise to get those states in his column? Or do the constant public rumblings from conservatives about his purported support for lowering U.S. agricultural subsidies (which seems bizarre considering the Farm Bill he signed) and a hemispheric free trade zone show us the true Bush soul?

I give you two stories to contrast the Jekyll and Hyde Bush. First from the Weekly Standard on what is probably the most protectionist Democratic ticket in history. Here we see the optimisic vision of Bush the free-trader who is just waiting for his second term to push for lower barriers.

Unfortunately there's this other guy......and he is best understood by this most recent election compromise this time on, of all things shrimp. My thanks to Andrew Cohen for pointing out this policy to me. Seems the president has decided that some countries are"dumping" shirmp on the U.S. because they can produce it at lower costs and thus charge us lower prices. Heaven for fend! Not surprisingly this will hurt industries in swing states like North Carolina and Louisana. To protect the Bubba Gump Shirmp business we've punished Vietnam. Stupid is, as stupid does.

So which Bush are classical liberals supposed to believe? The tariff wielding protectionist, who has been most visible during the first four years, or the promised free-trade convert? Should we be voting for a promise rather than a record? If the Bush record weren't littered with big government spending and offensive tariffs to support export industries it might be easier to believe the promises. Certainly Kerry and Edwards in contrast look so bad on trade that many of us may be tempted to believe the Bush rhetoric on what his next term will hold. However right now the White House is asking for a lot of faith among free traders that another four years will lead to freer trade.

Pat Lynch - 7/13/2004

I'd say that may be a bit too pessimistic. I mean the guy may be modeling himself after Reagan and delegate, but he does have some core beliefs. Perhaps the question I should have asked is something you say, if he doesn't believe in free trade as a core value, which Reagan did, does that merit our trust in him as libertarians or classical liberals? Based on my recent blogs you can guess what my answer to that is, but I guess I'm trying to convince others who might be thinking of supporting him to think and long and hard about who he really is.

Roderick T. Long - 7/13/2004

I'm inclined to doubt that Bush has any settled and deifnite position on free trade, so asking whether he's "really" a free-trader or "really" a protectionist may in some sense be optimistic -- a bit like asking whether he's a nominalist or a realist about universals. I don't think it's an issue he cares much about. So the question to ask is: which advisors does he tend to listen to on economic questions, and what do their views on free trade appear to be?