The Pros Lose to the Cons
Lou Dobbs replaces Milton Friedman as the face of economic conservatism.
Matthew Continetti
October 13, 2008, Vol. 14, No. 05
Remember the good old days, when the world economy hummed along and globalization seemed exciting? When President Clinton told Americans to stop what they were doing and help him build a bridge to the 21st century? When famous columnists celebrated the fact that The World Is Flat? Well, those days are over. The world economy is teetering. Suddenly globalization seems frightening. Construction on Clinton's bridge has been indefinitely postponed. And apparently the world is no longer simply flat. It's Hot, Flat and Crowded.
Future historians will spend careers arguing over when this new era began. They'll have plenty of options. But they ought to take a good look at September 29, 2008. That's the day when two-thirds of House Republicans voted to kill the Bush administration's $700 billion "financial rescue plan." The plan eventually passed Congress, but the vote on September 29 was the one that mattered. It was the day when two-thirds of House conservatives made a huge mistake. The day when Lou Dobbs replaced Milton Friedman as the face of economic conservatism.
We're used to seeing certain types of arguments among Republicans. There are fights between moderates and conservatives, neocons and paleocons, small- and big-government types, populists and elitists, insurgents and the establishment. The internal fight over the bailout bill was different. It pitted the conservatives who want to promote the international system we call "globalization"-for simplicity let's call them Pros-against those who do not. Let's call the latter Cons. This is their moment.
Globalization depends on the free worldwide flow of capital, labor, and goods. Pros want to help this flow, while Cons want to shut it off. Hence the Cons' position on free trade (against), immigration (against), and international finance (who needs it?). The leaders of the Pros are President Bush and John McCain. The leaders of the Cons are Representatives Duncan Hunter of California, Tom Tancredo of Colorado, and Ron Paul of Texas.
These are not cut and dried labels. Conservatives can be anti-immigration and pro-bailout, or pro-trade and anti-immigration. But when you look carefully enough, it's fascinating how the same folks tend to line up together on global issues again and again. You also notice how passionately they argue their point of view. There were times during the bailout debate last week when National Review Online's group blog, "The Corner," resembled a rumble between the Crips and the Bloods.
The battle between the Pros and the Cons has been pronounced since 2006. Early that year the Bush administration sought to approve a deal that would have had a Dubai-owned company take over operations at major U.S. ports. This was exactly the sort of deal that you'd expect in a globalized world. Capital is supposed to cross borders with ease.
But the Dubai deal provoked a remarkable public outcry. Suddenly the federal government was "selling our ports" to foreigners. Who knew what could happen as a result? Hunter led the opposition, but the Democrats pitched in, too. A few brave souls tried to defend the global market. They cautioned that nobody was in any danger. They argued that America ought to be open to outside investment. They were totally ignored. Hunter and his allies scuttled the deal.
President Bush has continued to underestimate the power of the Cons. Soon after the Dubai ports controversy, Bush asked Congress to approve his immigration reform. America's remarkable economic performance over the last 25 years has attracted millions of immigrants. Plenty of them have entered the country illegally. Bush's reform was classic pro-globalization legislation and would have helped the American economy. It sought to stabilize the labor flow by instituting a guest-worker program and regularize the status of those immigrants who already were here.
But this was too much for plenty of House Republicans. They opposed the reform vociferously. They argued instead that the Bush administration should build a wall along America's southern border. Once again, Hunter led the opposition, and, once again, Hunter won. Bush's reform went nowhere. He failed with it again in 2007.
