We're back with another edition of The Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Emil Jasinski,
culture editor here at The Federalist. As always, you can email the show
at radio at the Federalist dot com, follow us on Twitter at ftr LST.
Make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcasts, and to the premium
version of our website as well. I'm joined today by Robert Leinheiser, who
is out with a new book, No Trade Is Free, changing course taking
on China and helping America's workers. Thank you so much for joining us.
I really appreciate it. Well, thank you for having me on. I'm
a big fan of The Federalist and so this is a thrill for me.
I had the opportunity to hear you about an American Compass event recently, and
I have a feeling that what you were talking about there is a lot of
you know, a lot of that made it into the book if if I'm
if my suspicions are correct, and that was excellent. So I'm very excited
to dive into the book and to ask you some questions. And I want
to start with one that it's kind of a plays off of the subtitle of
the book helping America's workers. That in and of itself it sounds obvious to
you know, people who understand the problem, but I think a lot of
people here in Washington don't. So the obvious question to toss your way would
be why do America's workers need help? Do they need help at all?
As a question that some people seem to still be grappling with so so emily
I appreciate that's the sort of the fundamental question I guess I would say,
um, to go back to first principles, what makes America great? Why
are we the greatest country in the world? And why have we had the
biggest economy in the world since at least in ninety and and we've been the
you know, the greatest world power, either with someone else, serve by
ourselves for a couple of generations or more so to me, what makes America
great Our American communities and they're made out by American families, and they may
have by American workers. So it all comes down to the workers. So
the question is what is what should the objective of economic policy be? And
then take a step inside of that and say trade policy and the objective of
that policy should be to make America American workers better off, to have them
have better jobs, make more money, stay together in their families, have
children that they're proud of and and hopeful form, and then that trades into
that translates into communities, and then that's what makes America great. So to
me, it all comes down to the workers. The alternative thought would be
that, no, it's a about corporate profits, or no, it's about
having the cheapest consumption, right, and those are you know, those are
kind of alternatives, And some people who think differently than I do would say,
oh, no, it's really about consumption. You want to consumers to
be able to consume the most, and that means the cheapest price, even
if that cheap price comes from China and from you know, slave labor,
or from failure to enforced environmental laws or the life. So and then,
of course, as I say to the third alternative, which is very much
like the second alternative, is corporate profits. You want to maximize what's good
for business, and I just think that's upside down, right. What's what's
good for general motors is good for America's the kind of shifting mentality when you
have the CEO of Nike going to China and saying we think of ourselves as
a Chinese company or whatever. I'm paraphrasing what he said. And that's another
question. Just in the the subheading of the book itself, taking on China
and helping America's workers, your opponents, uh, you know, would probably
counter and say taking on China to the point you just made, you know
that that will increase the cost of goods and won't ultimately be good for American
workers. So this is another kind of huge question. But what is your
response as to my taking on China? I mean, not only is this
a huge question, this is like the focus of your work, but why
why do both of those things go together? And is there a way to
take on China that could end up not helping American workers? But you have
to sort of do it the right way in order to help American workers.
Well, look at look at I'm a believer in sort of a two staff
analysis. All right, the first analysis. The first question is is China
a friend or is it an axisential threat, an adversary, a hostile military,
aggressive power. Right, that's the fundamental question. If you don't get
that question right, then everything you do looks wrong. Right, So I
think it's easy to say yes, all those things are true. I thought
it was easy to say yes in the nineties, and I said it in
the op edge of the light. But by now, with the help of
seasing, paying, and all the other things that China has done, it
should be obvious to any person of good will. So then the next question
is how do we keep how do we prevail in this all important competition?
And I would suggest the first thing you have to do is stop feeding the
crocodile, right, you quit shifting hundreds of billions of dollars of American wealth
to China, and you take back for American workers those jobs that we lost
in the two thousands, largely because of a very very serious all see mistake,
maybe one of the most serious we've ever made, and that is granting
most favored nation treatment to a hostile country in the in this case China,
of course. So we're in a competition with China. We have to do
something about it. We've decided now that they are a very very big threat
to in the United States. Then the question is what do we do for
me? It is strategic decoupling, because you can't continue to transfer well to
them and technology and build up their army and their navy and all of these
things once you realize how hostile they are now. The effect on American workers
it's really quite simple. And the American workers lose jobs and upward pressure on
wages because of China. And people say, well, you know, it
was a popular view in the nineties that oh, well, we'll just trade
and transfer our wealth to China and then they'll turn out to be like Switzerland.
Well, you know, it was a foolish thought then, but a
very common one in the nineties. But as I say, it's not a
position that one can can legitimately take in twenty and twenty three. So we
need to bring war manufacturing back to the hind States, manufacturing jobs and the
jobs that are thrown off by manufacturing. We need to take care of our
own people. If you drive through the Midwest, you see town after town,
and not just the Midwest, by the way, the South and parts
of the East and West too. You drive through these places that it used
to have a vibrant manufacturing base, and you now see dilapidated ghost towns are
worse, and we have to reverse that. That was the result of a
foolish policy. And now we know that policy was wrong, we have to
have to take care of those workers, give them jobs. And I always
like to say a job is not just about making money, although that's an
important part of it. A job is also about the dignity of work,
right, That is, it is important for a person, whatever their job,
to see themselves as contributing to society, that their work is useful,
and that they're reasonably compensated for it. So all of these things militate in
favor of a different policy towards China, and for me, strategic coupling,
and for me that has kind of free pieces. One you put tariffs on
too, so that you get to balance trade. I'm not saying no trade
with China. You know, they didn't say completely coupling. I think that's
unrealistic and probably not helpful. But we ought to have balance trade with them.
We ought to disngage our technology from theirs, and then we ought to
put restrictions, reasonable restrictions on outgoing and incoming investment from China. So anyway,
that's that's kind of prescription. And you're right, and you talk about
it in the book. And if I said something in American Compass, it's
not in the book. Um, and it's really important to tell me because
it's not just in the second book that's a fantastic it's it's pretty much all
in there from my dive into it. And and that's where you're write about,
um, your USMCA and what the next steps and all that could look
like. So if you know, there's a thirty thousand foot kind of assessment
of how the Trump era trade policy, which obviously you are a big part
of, what does that look like now that there's some distance in the rear
view mirror, and obviously the Biden administration has kept some of the stuff,
not all of the stuff. Um, what's your sort of overall take on
the trajectory of those policies and whether they worked, whether they didn't work,
now that there's some distance there. So it's kind of funny the d accident
in his book, President of the Creation, you made this point that when
you write a book, it's hard to say what it was life not knowing
what the end would be at the time you made the decisions, right,
And that's a hard thing to convey. And the same thing is true here.
We have to put ourselves kind of back and say, what was the
situation. Let's just focus on China, because there's kind of two points.
One is China and the other is a worker oriented trade policy US. This
focus on China, what did people think in two and seventeen? And people
were still very much of the myth that we could work together and accomplish things
together. And one of the grail contributions that President drum made and that those
of the administration made was exposing to the world that that's not true and convincing
Americans that that's not true. That we're in a competition and we're losing that
competition and we're losing it because of wrong policy choices that we're making a right
so so so now I say, do I think it was a success?
The answer is yes, I think it was. It was a great success,
But it wasn't you know? On this Every now and then I'll quote
Churchill, I know, you know that the famous you know is just know
the the end or the beginning, and then he ends up by saying,
this is the end of the beginning. I think that what we did was
the beginning of a very smart policy, uh strategy that will lead to strategic
company. But anyway, no one, no rational person leaves that what we
did is enough to tip the scales ultimately and be the COUDI gross and now
we're going to take over China and we're going to be more powerful than I
mean. Well, stay that this week changes the trajectory so that now China
is not catching up with us as much. What we did was start a
new policy, and it was a month monumental start. But we need more,
and I believe that if President Trump had been elected, we would have
gotten more. I think if he's elected in twenty four we will get more.
I think if some of the other Republican candidates are elected, we will
also get more. They will move in the direction and continue what we started.
But you don't want to diminish how important it was to start, because
we literally turned the ship around and put in place tariffs and began the process
of decoupling. We put export controls. Secretary Ross and others put export controls
on. We did a lot of very important fundamental things that had really never
been done before like that. But for sure more needs to be done.
So I'm really happy with what we did on China. I think it was
one of the two or three greatest accomplishments of the last administration. Now,
in terms of the current administration, like most administrations, it has people in
it who would say yes, that's correct and people who would say no,
I'm sorry to get the opinion that the president, President Biden is in the
group that doesn't think we have a serious problem, which ida that's a you
know, a very very small group of Americans who are thoughtful and think that,
and he clearly does seems to want a softer, more uh you know,
kind of a policy that will allow them to continue to take our technology,
to take our wealth, and to become the number one power in the
world. That seems to be where they're going now. I've said that they
still have our tariffs in place, and some of the people in this administration,
I don't want to get into names, are very good on this issue
and I but I just feel that the President is not in that group.
Every year, children are trafficked around the world. And now there's a new
movie aimed at raising awareness to this often unseen horror. It's called Sound of
Freedom from Angels Studios. Sound of Freedom is based on a true story.
It shines a light on even the darkest of places. After rescuing a young
boy from ruthless child traffickers, a federal agent learns the boy's sister is still
captive and decides to embark on a dangerous mission to save her. With time
running out, he quits his job and journeys deep into the Colombian jungle,
putting his life on the line to free her from a fate worse than death.
Starring Jim Cavizo, the actor renowned for his unforgettable portrayal of Jesus in
The Passion, and Academy Award winner Mira Sorvino, the film is directed by
Alajandra Monteverde. It's rated PG thirteen. Again It's based on a true story,
and it will be theatrically released in the US on July fourth, twenty
twenty three. You can buy your tickets online. New theaters are being added
daily, so check out the website for current and nation and that is angel
dot com, slash Freedom and listen. I've seen the trailer. Check out
the trailer. I think you're gonna want to go see this film, especially
in theaters. Just a fascinating glimpse at again, something that is a true
story. It explores these themes of human trafficking, bravery, and justice.
By supporting the movie, you contribute to raising awareness and propelling a movement to
save children around the world. It's also a pay it forward initiative. That's
a concept where generous individuals provide free tickets for others to see the film.
If you want to pay it forward so that they can pack the theaters the
week of July fourth, you can do so once again at angel dot com
slash Freedom. And if the price of a ticket is keeping you from going,
generous fans have paid it forward tens of thousands of free tickets worth of
money, so you can you can see the film opening week and you can
get a free ticket also at angel dot com slash Free Tickets help spread that
message worldwide. Sound of Freedom is coming to theaters July, so you can
buy your tickets today to reserve a spot opening week, and the more theaters
are sold out, the more awareness is raised on this issue that so often
does go unnoticed. Find a theater near you by visiting angel dot com slash
freedom. Get your tickets today at that same website once again, that's angel
dot com slash Freedom. You know That's exactly what I was going to ask
you next, because I wanted to ask us about the Republican field ahead of
us and just the Democratic Party in general, because there has been Um,
it does seem and things that I've heard from from folks is that the Biden
administration has people that are kind of going in both directions, and it's sort
of similar to the Trump administration. And I know that you, I'm sure
you had to fight um for a lot of you know, your your policies,
although the president himself seemed to very clearly understand the problem. What would
your expectation be, Um, you know, what does the Republican field?
What's your assessment of the Republican field now? At absorb were being some of
the very obvious lessons that you know, nobody was really talking about until Donald
Trump came along and made them sort of front and center in our political discourse.
And does it seem as though some Democrats, you know, you're shared
Brown's Um, some of those people who kind of understand what's happened to your
homestate of Ohio are players of my homestate of Wisconsin. M Are they are?
Are there chances that another Biden term would you know, see the starting
to continue with the ball rolling down the hill in the right direction. So
so so I don't want to talk about the Republican candidates and then I'll and
then I'll talk about the let's just talk generally about it there, I would
say, first of all, no one will run on a soft on China
policy, because that's the equivalent of saying, putting up your handasy, I've
decided I don't want to be elected, right because their country is not there.
So the issue for a candidate will be if they're kind of a free
trade let's you know, it's important that corporation makes foodles of money and that
a guy with two billion has a fair chance to get the three billion.
You know, that's a high priority. If you think like that, you'll
say China batch, China bad, China bad, Let's do nothing right.
That'll be kind of your policy. And that's kind of the globalist part of
the Republican Party. That's kind of where they are. And it's a it's
a shrinking, shrinking group, right, It's a you know that they have
almost no representatives in Congress, and you know that's kind of a you know,
kind of a Harvard Economics Department kind of a view. But if you
have that view, you'll say I want to be tough on China, and
you'll say I'll be toalugh on China by doing nothing, all right. Then
the other group are people who will actually get it all right, and they'll
want to do something. And there are several that are in this group that
are not, in my judgment, globalists, and they'll want to do something.
Then the question will be do they have the actual the guts is sort
of a crude word, but there's an even cruder what's right? Do they
have the guts to follow through and do these things when all the clever people
and all the businesses are on the other side. And that's a question mark.
I know how hard that is because I had to do it, and
I had the benefit of President Trump, right, who was because to stand
up and do it was right. I'll be damned right. So there's so
you have people who really don't agree with where we are. Then you have
people who agree, and then the question with them will be whether they really
will be able to get to do it when they get in. And then
you have a few I told the President drump is in this group who without
question, you know what he'll do, right, he gets it, he
understands that he'll do it. So you know, that's kind of the analysis
on my side. Do on this on these two issues, the trade being
worked or oriented in China? Do I trust all the Republican candidates. I
think every one of them, I mean this, honestly would be better than
President Biden. But I don't think they would all be great. So then
you look on the other side, and you mentioned Jared Brown, and for
sure he gets right. His background is very similar to mine, and he
gets it. He wrote a book on trade years and years and years ago.
So there clearly are parts of the Democratic Party that are really good on
this issue, both the China issue and on the worker oriented trading issue.
And I worked with a lot of them. I don't want to start naming,
you know, seven of them think I've dropped him un intentionally, But
those are the people I worked with, and that's why we got ninety percent
of Republicans and ninety percent of Democrats on the USMCA vote. Those there are
a bunch of them who get it. The problem is there are also a
bunch of globalists. And I believe and people who are so conventional that they
look at the old economics of years ago that's been proven wrong and they want
to sort of fall into line with that, and they don't remember, No
Republican Party is no longer the party a big business. So if you're like
a big banker and all of that, you have an extreme or big tech
extreme interest in influence over the Democratic Party and very little of the Republican Party.
So on the Democratic side, there are some very good members of Congress
on these issues that I care about. The candidate will be President Biden,
and I do not believe that he understands it, or gets it, or
will stand up to China. I do not believe it. I was hoping
for a long time because I think that the people who got it his administration
were prevailing. They were aided by the fact that politically you couldn't For example,
you're rid of the tariffs, right, you just couldn't do it.
Just be the equivalent thing, I surrender China, and that's not going to
get you like, but I do. I'm more and more of the view
that this administration is drifting into the pro China camp, either for foreign policy
reasons or because big business wants to make money, or or because they have
some personal state in China industry. Right, So those are like the three
positive I's probably a couple and more than I haven't thought of. So overall,
I am very pessimistic that if Joe Biden is elected that we will even
continue the tough policy that President Drum started. I think we'll go back.
I think the rid of the tariffs and I think we're going to fall into
them, have a real, real and no political leverage to change it.
So that's very scary to me. As they say on the Republican side,
is a mixed fact. There's two or three people maybe three or four who
I think would want to do the right thing and would know what the right
thing is, and the only question to them is where they do it right?
So you know, that's kind of my analysis. Politically, I do
think that with the American people in both parties, the vast majority of them
who think about this issue, we have convinced them of the rightness of our
position. Absolutely. And you just said something so interesting about the Republican candidates
versus a second Biden term. And you know, when I talk to people
on the left, I think it's abundantly obvious. So a lot of folks
on the right now that the Republican Party is really no longer the party of
big business that's sort of split with the Chamber of Commerce, has been conspicuous
and serious, But folks on the left are still so deeply skeptical of that.
They'll say, yeah, right, what are you talking about out and
from your perspective, having sort of been inside the halls of power and you
know, been being the subject of plenty of attacks from that sort of Chamber
of commerce wing, can you speak to you know how clear that divorce really
has been in recent years, well in the verse way. So it's it's
only my own experience, right, And there's all kind of stuff going on
that I'm not privy too, but I think it's a fundamental shift. I
think the Chamber of Commerce, who I fought with the end the Business Roundtable,
you know, I mean it was a gentlemanly fight, but we've got
a lot of issues. They post me everything I did, not just with
respect of China, but also USMCA and Japan and Korea. Um, these
are so much like the Business round Table. It's it's it's the Chamber of
commerce. They fought me because they want because they're basically controlled by big business,
and big business is making a lot lots of money with the status quo,
and what they're what we're really doing is shifting the current policy, if
you think of that in economic terms, is shifting resources away from workers and
into the pockets into the pockets of sort of rent seekers, if you want
to use the old traditional terms. Right. So, we are basically transferring
the wealth of this country. And that's why you see middle class people getting
poorer, the bottom in the middle class dropping out. You have this this
inequity, and then you see the very very rich get rich. And of
course before we have programs for and I think that is I used to say
years ago, I used to say, they have a name for countries like
that, they call them South America. Right, That's what it was.
And now we are moving in that direction. And it's very very troubling to
me. It's troubling to me that that that and I'm I'm so proud of
the fact that the Republican Party has become the party of the working people,
right, I mean that that makes me probably because I am a base rock
conservative. I analyze everything through a conservative prison. And the fact that that
the Republican Party wants to preserve the values, the greatness of the American middle
class, the greatness of the American workers makes me proud to be a Republican.
I mean, it really does. And and and in the fact that
the Chamber of Commerce and these people are trying to go in the other direction
and opposing everything we're trying to do, that in a way is almost a
verification that what you're doing is the right thing for the right people. The
Senator Rubio reflects on the Reagan administration, which you were a part of,
and that gives you, I think, fascinating perspective on the sort of arc
of the modern Republican Party, especially since the approach to trade, the approach
to industry and business more generally is such an a central glimpse into all of
that. He puts it well. And so that Reagan was a man who,
you know, understood the moment, the conservatism that America needed in the
moment. And uh, you know, Reagan would have been flexible enough to
understand what version of conservatism is and that version to mean they're different, but
like what conservative policy agenda is needed in this moment and given your vantage point.
Um, that's you know, it's so helpful to that exact question I
wanted to ask. Regan had obviously had a much more complicated legacy on trade
than a lot of the sort of libertarians in Washington like to pretend, although
some of them are still salty about it. Um, what is the what
can we learn from the Reagan approach to putting America first? Um? While
also you know, putting America first by making goods cheaper, but doing it
in a smart way and approaching these relationships in a way that puts American work
first, in American families and communities first. So there's a lot in that.
It's it's it's just it's just fun to have this conversation, and I
hope that the listeners enjoyed as much as I do. So there's there's an
awful out there. First of all, you know, kind of what is
the Republican Party. Let's think about that exact So it clearly initially was an
anti slave party, right, and then they got rid of slavery, and
it morphed into a big business well, let's just say a business party,
because in a lot of the country, there was no big business like a
lot of things like this, we went through a period where big business took
over. But you always had if you think of it analytically, you always
had two Republican parties, and you sort of alluded to this. You had
the Northeastern Rockefeller types, and there were a lot of different people who carried
that then. And then you had the Robert Taft types, the Bob Dole
types, kind of the Midwest workers, both small business, store owner Republican
party. Those are the two different Republican parties. One was kind of elite
and and basically, as I say, on the Northeast, the one was.
The other was in the rest of the country and largely in small towns,
in country clubs, but not in fancy country clubs. Um. The
that party through all that time had one thing in common. For let's say,
at least in July, is now one thing in common, and that
is it was for tariffs to help businesses, which I would say also health
workers. Um you saw. I know it's kind of a complicated case.
I will talk about that, but what I can if you want. But
we sort of jump ahead. Now we have Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan is
running against not just Jimmy Carter, but remember he ran against Joe Ford,
and Joel Ford was from the Middlewest, but he was very much of the
Rockefeller part of the Republican Party. He he was not from the Northeast,
but that was the group that sort of he came from. And now you
have Ronald Reagan, who's who's obviously from the midwestern Italy too. But but
but now governor California from the West, and he runs basically a populous,
common sense, pro worker kind of a you know, a rent for president.
He does not win in seventy six, is hard to be an incumbent,
but he does win in eighty and and he's attacked. He's attacked by
the Democrats, but also attacked by the sort of elite Northeastern Republicans who are
a shrinking and shrinking group and went to the Union vote in eighty He won
the union vote, right, well, I don't know if he won it
or not. He may have, but he certainly got a percent of it
that was out of scale from anyone had ever done before, right, so
he for sure that was his group. Then you had the the let's just
say the bushes at sander Ridge frogs. They were very much of the Northeastern
group, right, and that was a group that by the time they came
in, was largely dead, right, think, we didn't have any governors,
we didn't have we have very congressmen. We had no senators from that
from the whole northeast. But yet they were sort of of that group.
And then you have around Reagan. I'm sorry that you had Donald Trump who
came along and he's like rank right, he's basically a populist. So you
know, that's kind of the arc of the party. And I think the
party, now everyone would agree, is a working person party. A part
of what's happened, by the way, is that business has changed, right,
and all of a sudden, the banks are all Democrat, and tech
is all Democrats, all the biggest companies all as an exaggeration, of course,
but largely so. So what is Ronald Reagan's um legacy on trede You
alluded to it, You're exactly right, not when when? When when he
left office, the libertarian said he was the most protectionist president since Hoover.
They opposed everything that we did, and I was part of that, but
but he he saved the country in a way not unlike the way that that
that Donald Trump did in twenty and sixteen. So he took on Japan,
which was the big problem. He limited their steely and while other people still
lived at automobile, semiconductors, motorcycles, you know, the whole, the
whole group of things, he was at, you know, kind of an
economic patriot. That's where he was coming from. Um And and you know,
then, as I say, we lost that for a period of time,
and then when Trump came in, we got it back. And I
would say when Trump came in, the case was even clearer. But another
kind of way to think about this is Ronald Reagan talked about supply side economics,
all right, cutting taxes to get businesses to operate, blah blah blah
blah blah. How different is that than saying we are for the production side
of the scale, which is kind of something I mentioned a few minutes ago,
rather than the consumption side of the scale. Supply side and pro production,
which is really where Trump was coming from, are very much the same
thing, and they had the same things in common. Now, the trade
situation had gotten much worse than rival Reagan was there, so that became a
far bigger job for President Trump than it would have been for Reagan. But
if you think about it, it's cutting taxes, cutting regulation, getting a
fair trade. All of these were the basic things that Ronald Reagan did in
his own time and that Donald Trump did this time, and that I believe
the next Republican can, and they'd be a Trumps or someone else, because
I don't think a big you know, a big bank kind of a guy.
Can we in our globalists? Can we in our nomination? And may
be wrong by the way, I've been wrong before, but not often so
so I feel you know that that we have changed the way we as a
party are, that we are as I said before, and I'm proud of
the fact that we worry more about those people that I grew up with in
Asheville, Ohio, and where you grew up with in Wisconsin, and a
thousand other thousand. There's ten thousand and twenty thousand other places. We worry
more about them and their life than I believe the Democrats. You know,
they would argue with me, I would say, no, they're worried about
other things that have nothing to do with economics and the quality of life of
those people, they're they're worried about other things, and that you know that
the Republican Party is going to prevail because it's the working class party. And
it's so interesting that that perspective on where people forget about Reagan sort of coming
in and priming forward and being that sort of populist opponent of the establishment my
wing of the Republican Party, and even at the time, this is the
only thing that that sort of baffles me always if I go back and look
at, you know, someone like what Murray Rothbard was writing about NAFTA and
saying about NAFTA, there's the split that just you go in these different directions
around the time of NAFTA and then into wto or the Republican Party. I've
never fully been able to understand how a lot of people, some of them
were from the Reagan administration and involved in what you all did and it became
very very you know, sort of open border, open market, all of
that. And I wonder if you have perspective on you know, why HI
that side one out. I think the obvious answer is probably money, because
there was, you know, at the same time, a good argument and
a consource of money to be made, but why is it that, you
know, sort of the Rothbart's kind of fade into the background for a while,
and this argument really took hold and dominated the GOP until Donald Trump came
along. You know, first of all, there's a theology that people have
that that you know, doesn't really have much to do with sense of facts,
and there's a lot of people just have this infection, this theology of
free trade. That's number one. Number two, there was a misconception,
but a very common conception, that we are an agricultural party, by the
way most conservative parties are in the world, that we're an aggreend. Agriculture
wants free trade. And the truth is that in trade deals, agriculture tends
to do better than manufact lecturing because other countries want access to our manufacturing market.
So there was there was some element of that in it. Your senator
from an agricultural state in the Midwest, you're going to be a free trader,
that the agricultural groups are free traders. And part of what we did
was convinced them and show them, not really show them that nobody is treated
worse in trade than agriculture. They are lizard in the horstry because everyone is
protections in that area. So so part of it was just an infection infectious
theology. Part of it was there was this sort of sense about agriculture,
you know. Part of it was just a hope, right in other words,
you hadn't seen enough damage done to be able to look at the facts.
If you look like at my my, if you look at my epigram,
right, my epigram is I have a quote from from John Wooden that
says failure may not be fatal, but failure to change maybe. And we
had people that just wouldn't change. And then the final piece is what you
said, big business was making lots of money, and as they became more
importers, you know, they would, they would, they had a bigger,
bigger stake, And so you ended up with one trade round after another,
and then you had to try what I call it the tr effect of
stupid, all of which was done by Bill Clinton but could never have been
done without the Republican Party supporting him, you know, And that is NAFTA
the year A way around which you could think of is the WTO and all
the parts of that, and then giving China Mfan all that happened in a
very short period of time, right around the end of Clinton's first term,
and in the case of China, as he's walking out the door and turning
out the lights, he's given the country to China. And that's those are
three really bad policies. He gets the blame, the condemnation for all of
them, but they all couldn't have been done without a lot of republic enthusiastic
Republicans, you know, who kind of bought this notion that we just trade
and trade trade. Basically, when they say trade, they mean by we
just buy enough from China. They're going to be good people. And they
didn't understand communism, and they didn't understand the threat. They didn't understand now,
they didn't understand the history at all. So priture. It has changed.
And the thing that's made it so important is not just the intellectual side
of the change, but it's the practical political side of the change. Right.
Our voters are those people. It's no longer enough to be able to
say the Chamber of Commerce supports me. That won't get you in anything.
Our voters are those working class people, and they know it. The book
is called No Trade is Free changing course, taking on China and helping America's
workers. And one of the things I love about it is that you actually
have You call it a short and selective history of American trade policy, but
it's it is really, really helpful and touches on so much that you were
kind enough to share with us here. Robert Leitheizer, thank you so much
for joining us. Yeah, only thank you for happy It was a ball.
Of course, you've been listening to another edition of The Federalist Radio Hour.
I'm e Eleikashitsky, culture editor here at the Federalist. We'll be back
soon with more. Until then, be lovers of freedom and anxious for the fray.