Newsline

Economy , Newsline

Biden Needs to Consult New Lighthizer Trade Book

Posted on Tuesday, November 14, 2023
|
by Walter Samuel
|
14 Comments

AMAC Exclusive – By Walter Samuel

Robert Lighthizer and U.S. Trade Representative logo

As President Joe Biden heads to California to meet with Indo-Pacific leaders on Wednesday, his administration is scrambling to shore up support for a new Asia trade pact that even some Democrats have expressed reservations about. With tensions between the U.S. and China continuing to escalate, former United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer’s recently published book, No Trade Is Free: Changing Course, Taking on China, and Helping America’s Workers, has proven both prophetic and instructive.

There is a saying that high office attracts two types: those who want to be someone and those who want to do something. It is clear from Lighthizer’s career that he falls into the latter category.

After graduating from Georgetown Law School, landing a job with the late Senator Robert Dole, then Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and then serving as Deputy U.S. Trade Representative under President Ronald Reagan, Lighthizer would have found it easy to parlay those connections into a series of lobbying roles selling the benefits of free trade and deregulation. That was the path so many others in Washington, D.C. traveled at the time, and in the decades since.

That is not the route Lighthizer took. Never forgetting his upbringing in Ashtabula, Ohio, just outside of Cleveland, Lighthizer went into politics because he wanted to do something. That something was, in his telling, to fight to protect America and American workers from the policies which had devastated cities like Ashtabula across the Rust Belt.

Starting in 1985, Lighthizer spent much of his life fighting a campaign to make America’s leaders actually put America first when it came to trade.

Lighthizer was not a protectionist by instinct. He felt trade was important. But trade had to be fair. America’s leaders, by abandoning efforts to ensure that the globalized system was fair, had not only abandoned America’s interests, but undermined the healthy global economy they purported to champion.

Lighthizer’s new book is in one sense a memoir. But it differs from typical memoirs by former senior officials and politicians in the same way that Lighthizer differed from so many of his contemporaries and colleagues.

Political memoirs in general are first and foremost about the author. In Lighthizer’s book, the biographical segments fill in needed context, nothing more. He explains how he came to Washington and what roles he held, but the purpose is not to chronicle the story of Bob Lighthizer.

Rather, it is to explain why he came to the conclusions he did about international trade, and why the reader should adopt them. Unlike many former officials, he is presumably not interested in selling himself for future office or business endeavors. At 75, it’s clear from the text that his interest is in his country. To the extent he is concerned with a personal legacy, it is to persuade others to continue the work he started, rather than in assuming maximum credit for his achievements.

Lighthizer’s tale, then, is not about himself, but about America – and how America’s elites and leaders let down their country by failing to understand that free trade requires an even playing field that never existed anywhere in the real world.

Lighthizer devotes ample space to chronicling the history of how America’s ruling class went wrong. Instead of using America’s economic weight and geopolitical leverage to enforce a playing field where everyone could benefit from international trade and globalization, U.S. leaders acted increasingly as cheerleaders for greater globalization and international commerce in general, rather than the interests of the United States in particular. In fact, they seem to have assumed that increased cross-border trade was a positive in and of itself and were repeatedly willing to sacrifice America’s own position and interests to increase trade volume globally.

Outsourcing, the decline of America’s manufacturing sector, and persistent trade deficits were not the natural consequence of competitive advantage or free trade. Nor were they solely the fault of other countries abusing the system by subsidizing their domestic markets, exploiting loopholes in American laws, and exploiting institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO). Those things were only possible because for two generations American leaders allowed or even encouraged that behavior, right down to creating new loopholes foreign nations could exploit.

As recently as 2016, Lighthizer notes, a Republican Congress passed and Barack Obama signed a bill allowing up to $800 in goods to be brought into the United States duty free, effectively allowing Amazon and Chinese sellers (by shipping goods directly to consumers from China) to flood the U.S. market without tariffs, oversight for drugs like fentanyl, or even paying the taxes American competitors had to pay.

Lighthizer has been called a protectionist, but he challenges the premise of protectionism. Along with a brief biography, his book contains an abbreviated history of trade. Lighthizer makes the case that free trade requires reciprocity.

As he explains, in the 19th century, the United Kingdom, which was the first to industrialize and dominate the oceans, was a major advocate of free trade, because it would allow British products to be dumped abroad, undercutting less advanced local competitors. In turn, the United States and Germany heavily protected their markets, allowing for the creation of industrial economies which eventually overtook Britain’s.

What Lighthizer stresses, however, was that it was not merely the decision of the United States and Germany to protect their economies that aided them in overcoming the British lead. The British persistence in continuing to push free trade on ideological grounds, even in the face of lack of reciprocity not just by competitors such as Germany and America, but even barriers erected by London’s own dominions such as Canada, left British manufacturers at a disadvantage.

Lighthizer grasps an element of the traditional story on trade that is often missed: the predominant power in the global economy might well benefit from free trade, but if it pursues free trade as an end in and of itself, rather than using its predominant position to force others to open their markets, it will soon see its predominance fell. The United Kingdom chose to lower its own trade barriers rather than use them to bargain for access to the German and American markets. It was overtaken by both.

For Lighthizer, the years since the Second World War, but especially since the 1990s, have seen the United States repeat the errors of the British Empire. Until he 1940s, the U.S. generally tried to insist on parity. If the U.S. was going to lower its tariffs on goods from a country to 12 percent, it would expect that country to do the same. After the Second World War, the U.S. increasingly abandoned a policy of maximizing its advantage in bilateral negotiations in favor of making unilateral concessions on tariffs without requiring reciprocal action.

Initially, this had a legitimate geopolitical purpose, as Lighthizer concedes. Faced with the prospect of Communist aggression, and an Asia and Europe devastated by war, the United States was more concerned with strengthening the economies of Europe and Japan than it was with profiting from them. The American economic position was so overwhelming, and the economic position of the rest of the world so weak, that the concessions seemed to pose little economic threat to the United States, while a hardline stance might lead allies to slip into communism.

This policy was a geopolitical success. By the 1970s, Europe had rebuilt itself into a prosperous, politically stable continent whose prosperity undermined Soviet power in the Eastern bloc, while Japan had if anything become an economic challenger to the U.S. At the same time, South Korea, which had been the poorer, agriculture-dependent twin of industrial North Korea in the 1950s, was now a manufacturing powerhouse, largely through government support of Chaebols, or firms backed by Seoul with subsidies and protectionist policies.

Arguably, the policy had been sufficiently successful that it could have justified a pivot to more equal trading relations. This appears to have been the intention of those who framed the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, which created the office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) and tasked it with promoting “open and non-discriminatory trading in the free world; and to prevent communist economic penetration.”

The problem arose with the latter clause of this mission. While the USTR was charged with challenging “closed and discriminatory” trading practices in the “free world,” how were they to balance the priorities when their counterparts warned that opening their markets might pave the way for communist infiltration?

Lighthizer, as Deputy Trade Representative under Ronald Reagan, tried to prioritize the former mission, to create “non-discriminatory trading,” when it came to partners such as Japan. Japan was so successful that the idea that they might fall to communism if they were unable to dump Toyotas or Nintendo products in U.S. stores tariff free was laughable.

When it came to Europe and Canada, however, Lighthizer encountered an obstructive tactic that would become familiar to U.S. officials throughout the Obama administration. Those countries accepted the fact that, in principle, their trading practices are unfair, but maintained that abandoning those policies would cause them domestic difficulties which would undermine other American interests. In other words, America’s allies convinced credulous American leaders that unfair trade which disadvantaged the American economy and American workers was actually in America’s best interest.

For decades, until Lighthizer and Trump put their foot down in 2018, Canadian governments insisted that allowing U.S. dairy products into Canada would provoke Quebec to secede, and then expanded the argument to justify any protectionist measure Ottawa wished to take. European leaders became masters of presenting their prosperous welfare states as on the verge of collapse in the face of a never-ending series of threats that ostensibly would lead even the most minimal U.S. pressure to risk causing the collapse of the American-led free world.

In the 1980s, the Europeans argued that they need to buy off socialists who wished to adopt a neutral approach to the Cold War. In the 1990s, Europe insisted it needed more favorable trade policies for the re-integration of Eastern Europe. In the 2010s, Angela Merkel convinced Barack Obama that if Germany was not allowed to work with Chinese telecom providers, her chancellorship might be swept away in a populist backlash.

These arguments are still used today. The Biden administration abandoned a 17-year case against the European Union’s subsidization of Airbus, which has undermined Boeing’s position in the global market and cost tens of thousands of American jobs, because of the need to “repair” trans-Atlantic relations. This is to say nothing of a situation, which Lighthizer notes has lasted for decades, in which the European Union’s average tariffs on American goods have been set at 11 percent while America’s tariffs on European goods have averaged 2.5 percent.

The problem, as Lighthizer notes, is not primarily about an ideological belief in free trade. Almost everyone, including Lighthizer and Trump, favor some form of “free trade.” Nor is it that advocates of free trade such as Barack Obama, or even Bill Clinton, did not acknowledge that free trade does not exist, and that the barriers which exist under the institutions the U.S. has pushed for disadvantage Americans in numerous ways.

Rather, the problem is that American leaders have concluded that U.S. geopolitical interests are more important than American economic interests, sometimes justified on the basis that American political hegemony rebounds to the benefit of Americans economically, and therefore is worth paying for in the form of steadily more disadvantageous trade policies.

This would be bad enough if it manifested in a willingness to indulge the parochial interests of Canadian, European, and South Korean parochial interests. What has made it catastrophic has been that the geopolitical premise has turned out to be false.

In Part II of this review, I will Lighthizer’s telling of how he and Trump sought to correct that grave error after decades of economic pain inflicted on the American middle class.

Walter Samuel is the pseudonym of a prolific international affairs writer and academic. He has worked in Washington as well as in London and Asia, and holds a Doctorate in International History.

We hope you've enjoyed this article. While you're here, we have a small favor to ask...

The AMAC Action Logo

Support AMAC Action. Our 501 (C)(4) advances initiatives on Capitol Hill, in the state legislatures, and at the local level to protect American values, free speech, the exercise of religion, equality of opportunity, sanctity of life, and the rule of law.

Donate Now
Share this article:
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
14 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
PaulE
PaulE
5 months ago

Sorry, but the Biden administration isn’t about strengthening the United States in terms of trade policy. Their goal is actually the polar opposite of that. So, no one in the Biden administration will be reading any book by Mr. Lighthizer. This administration is all about appeasement and capitulation to other nations.

The authors of these articles need to stop trying to portray the Biden administration as being peopled by well-meaning but largely naive people. They are neither. The administration is populated by rigid, far left-wing ideologues who view Marxism as the blueprint for a successful governance model of the world. That’s a problem that goes far deeper than merely trade policy. That goes to the core reason why this administration is h*ll bent to undermine this nation at every turn on the world stage.

Joe McHugh
Joe McHugh
5 months ago

PaulE’s post is right on the mark. However, he failed to cite the main problem in American politics, the problem that continues to fill the sails of the Democrat armada.
The majority of American voters are beguiled by the concept of the “nanny state”. A large percentage of them vote for ever bigger government programs that effectively lead to the shoveling out of billions of dollars of the taxpayer’s money.
The Republicans? They discovered that calling for smaller government was a losing effort with the majority of the voters, so many of them caved in and reluctantly joined with the Democrats to support government “assistance” programs. The spending of borrowed money is actually a growing trend even as ALL of the politicians decry the size of the National Debt. That’s why “continuing resolutions” get approved at the last minute when the government runs out of appropriated money.
“A million dollars here and a million dollars there , and pretty soon you’re talking about serious money.” A Senator during the 1960’s once made that observation. The same is true today but now the individual program spending is in the billions that add up over ten years to be a trillion dollars for a single government “freebie” program.
PaulE identified the problem but he let the culprits off the hook by not identifying them, i.e. the majority of the voters. Worse, even if ALL of the people who pay Federal income taxes were to vote for the Republicans who voice opposition to the spending of more borrowed dollars, the Democrat candidates would still win handily. Psst! There are more voters who seek government support than there are people who pay Federal Taxes. The last time the income tax revenues were checked, 47% of the wage earners paid no Federal income taxes. This doesn’t include those people who have no visible means of support, (jobs).

It’s the fear of the Founding Fathers that has come home to roost. All of them wrote about this one weakness in every Representative Republic, but Thomas Jefferson wrote the most succinct and cautionary statement with this admonition: “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work, and give to those who would not.” James Madison wrote: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Which is worse, the politician who seeks to bribe the voter, or the voters who accepts the bribe?

Rik
Rik
5 months ago

I have to admit that before this article I was not familiar with Mr Lighthizer. It’s hard not to be very impressed with him! But if he was part of Trump’s administration, it makes me even more impressed with Donald Trump’s administration team. Whereas Jackass Joebama has Screwed Up Everything He Touches and to my amazement that people actually vote for this Clown!

Rob citizenship
Rob citizenship
5 months ago

Robert Lighthizer has good character, a high level of intelligence and the right spirit regarding trade policies. Confronted with challenges he recognizes that there are ways , methods, strategies , tools , means available to meet the challenges . That is the sort of American spirit that is needed at the foundation of this trade policy issue. Resourcefulness , combined with respect for the principles that the United States of America was founded upon provides incentive to do what is honorable , to do what is sensible and noble. In the spirit of respect for truth, for hope for better days ahead and for courage to keep this Nation on the right course.

Robert Zuccaro
Robert Zuccaro
5 months ago

When it’s the “greatest threat to life on earth”, I’m betting Biden pushes climate change not trade… except to increase the Chinese-US trade gap through EVs.

PapaGrouch
PapaGrouch
5 months ago

Reminds me of a timeless book by Pat Buchanan published almost 25 years ago, “A Republic, Not An Empire,” which was prophetic to where we are today and why. He is one of the few who has the patriotism, foresight and willingness to study and understand history and apply it to the world’s historical road map to come to conclusions. I’ve never seen this application of wisdom hit the bullseye. His works are more relevant today than they ever were. If you haven’t read any of his works, they’re a good investment of your time and intellect. It was a sad day when he entered his well deserved retirement.

A Voter
A Voter
5 months ago

Biden has to make good on the Chinese payouts he received while VP under Obama somehow. Same is being done for the money Hunter received from the Ukraine.

steve
steve
5 months ago

RE-POST: NY Times: Pandemic Learning Loss is the ‘Most Damaging Disruption’ in the History of American Education

https:/ /commoncts.blogspot.com/2023/11/re-post-ny-times-pandemic-learning-loss.html

Phil
Phil
5 months ago

There are several typos in this article. Makes the author look silly.

you
you
5 months ago

Why would Biden want to consult with a professional liar who doesn’t have a shred of honor or anything remotely resmbling integrity anywhere in his being.
There is a saying that high office attracts two types: those who want to be someone and those who want to do something. It is clear from Lighthizer’s career that he falls into the latter category.” You’d have to be a complete imbecile to believe something this ridiculous.

An older blonde women laughing in the kitchen with a grey haired man.
AMAC’s Medicare Advisory Service
The knowledge, guidance, and choices of coverage you’re looking for. The exceptional service you deserve.
The AMAC App on 3 different iPhone
Download the AMAC App
The AMAC App is the place to go for insightful news wherever you are and whenever you want.
Joe Biden speaking with attendees
NEW YORK - OCT 10:American homeless sleeps in New York city subway on October 10 2009.A 2013 report show that the number of homeless people recorded in NYC topped 50,000 for the first time.
Former President of the United States Donald Trump speaking with attendees at the 2023 Turning Point Action Conference at the Palm Beach County Convention Center in West Palm Beach, Florida.
gen z and boomers; election - pick your side poster

Stay informed! Subscribe to our Daily Newsletter.

"*" indicates required fields

14
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x

Subscribe to AMAC Daily News and Games