An autographed picture of Ronald Reagan hangs in my living room, and I proudly supported his 1980 election and 1984 re-election. So I was surprised to read this morning in The New York Times that Reagan was a supporter of globalization.
Maybe he was. But I always thought he — and Margaret Thatcher in Britain — was in favor of freedom — free people, free markets, less government and lower taxes. In my wildest dreams, I never thought that Reagan would support sacrificing American jobs and American workers for, say, Chinese or Mexican jobs and Chinese or Mexican workers.
And in that respect, I think I’m right. NAFTA was established in 1992 at the end of Bill Clinton’s first term, not during Reagan’s presidency. It is Clinton’s policy, not Reagan’s.
NAFTA is widely blamed, most recently by Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, for decimating the American industrial workplace. And certainly two news items from recent weeks seem to support that: Carrier, the air conditioning people, plan to close a plant in Indianapolis and open one in Mexico. That will kill 1,400 jobs. Likewise, Ford Motor Co. has announced plans to open a plant in Mexico and close one in Michigan.
This morning’s New York Times explains Brexit and the rise of Trump as reflecting “the anger of a working class that has been cast aside in the globalized economy.” I think that’s exactly right, which is what made a Washington Post Wonkblog article by Lawrence H. Summers, the former Treasury Secretary and president emeritus of Harvard University, so interesting. Writing immediately after the Brexit vote, Summers makes three crucial points:
- Brexit is worse for Europe than for Britain.
- Brexit is a signal that political support for global integration is “at best waning and at worst collapsing.”
- “The political challenge in many countries going forward is to develop a ‘responsible nationalism.’ It is clear that there is a hunger on the part of electorates, if not the Davos set within countries, for approaches to policy that privilege local interests and local people over more cosmopolitan concerns.”
On the last point, Summers is precisely correct. If Reagan supported increased global trade, it was because he believed that it would advance the cause of freedom in other nations without hurting — and in fact would probably help — American workers.
Since Reagan left office, however, the stated position of American policy elites has been simple: If global trade and open borders costs you your job, too bad.
The American presidential candidate who develops an effective response, what Summers calls responsible nationalism, will probably will the election.