Shouldn't the GOP At Least Be Anti-Communist?
By Rep. Thaddeus McCotter Posted in Congressional Contributors | Republicans — Comments (39) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
But, hey! Since the inquisitional tide is high, let’s surf the zeitgeist and add a new GOPique: Maybe I missed the memo, but when did the party of Ronald Reagan stop being anti-communist?
Please do keep reading . . .
Was it when some conservatives started espousing how the collapse of Russian and eastern European communism was “the end of history” (or, more accurately, “the end of historians” whose services were ostensibly no longer required)? Sure, the billion or so people still trapped under Asian and Latin American communism might quibble about how our moral duty to emancipate them, too, was unfinished. But it was time for the West to reap the spoils of winning the Cold War against the Soviet Union, and the enslaved souls in China, Vietnam and Cuba posed no bar to international capitalists rushing through the ruins of the Berlin Wall to grow rich without regard to human suffering.
Parroting America’s global businesses, Republican leaders began sounding like European leftists in their quest for “peaceful co-existence” with communists, terrorists, and any bum bent on killing them. Apparently, while he was right about winning the Cold War by economically strangling the barbarous Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan was wrong about how to defeat our more sophisticated communist “competitors” in China, Vietnam, and Cuba. Rejecting the notion America’s rapprochement with communist China was but a strategic convenience to leverage the demise of the Soviet empire, the “Party of Reagan” now touted trade as the best weapon for eliminating regimes still wedded to the passé philosophy of atheistic dialectical materialism. Oblivious to the political fact happy people don’t have revolt, many Republicans perversely inverted Lenin’s dictum and espoused the theory communists will buy the rope they use to hang themselves.
This “logic” devoid of precedent bred to the Permanent Normalization of Trade Relations with communist China, a Free Trade Agreement with communist Vietnam, and a clamor to end the embargo on communist Cuba. It further spurred the pathetic specter of Republicans claiming these captive nations are “progressing,” since the Chinese, Vietnamese, and Cuban peoples may now exercise their God-given, self-evident, and inalienable freedom of conscience to vote for the communist candidate who most feels their pain rather than inflicts it. While absurd on its face, such demonstration elections do at least prevent these “voters” from having to hold their noses and choose between the “the lesser of two evils,” because there isn’t one.
Another popular GOP justification for trading with totalitarians is these communist countries’ peoples are now prosperous and secure. This is heartening news to all involved in the global capitalist conspiracy to eradicate communism. Imagine the revolutionary masses inspired to throw off their Rolex yolk of totalitarianism by such phrases as “Peace, Land and Bread – Delivered!”; “Well-Off of the World Unite!”; and “Live Free or Thrive.” When their blessed emancipation magically occurs, we must be honest about our own nation’s revolutionary faux pas: instead of dressing as Native Americans and tossing barrels overboard, our early patriots should have attended the Boston Tea Party in casually elegant garb with their pinkies extended and contentedly requested the formation of a Royal Commission to study the effects of the Townshend and Stamp Acts upon colonial commerce.
A third prevalent Republican rationalization for bartering with butchers is how these communists are “not really” communists any more. This is based on the in-country, eye-witness testimony of Westerners whose great-grandfathers’ personal diplomacy once belied the myth there was a famine in Stalin’s Ukraine. There is only one problem with capitalists’ pronouncements Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and Fidel’s spawn have renounced their invidious ideology.
These communists didn’t get their memo, either.
[To be continued…]
« American Citizenship: A Privilege, Not a Right — Comments (25) | Importing Terrorists — Comments (13) »
Shouldn't the GOP At Least Be Anti-Communist? 39 Comments (0 topical, 39 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Does anyone know what Rep. McCotter's proposing? Cessation of trade with China? A boycott of Viet Nam?
You'll just have to stick around till he posts the rest ;)
Talk about backwards logic.
I understand there is an important debate about how to prod countries into a more democratic and capitalist direction, but this assumes one side is correct.
On the one hand, we could isolate countries and help impoverish them (and ourselves) by closing off relations and trade with a country. Then we hope that the isolation breeds either an internal revolution or a "change of heart" by the totalitarian leadership. For current examples, see Cuba, NK, and Iran.
On the other hand, we could encourage trade and relations with a country. We could try to build a middle class through economic opportunity and freedom with the knowledge that large middle classes usually rebel (although not always violently) against totalitarian leadership. For current examples see China and Russia.
I don't think there is any strong evidence that only one of these methods work, but both are efforts to undermine communism and are thus anti-communist. I generally lean toward the second approach and its pro-trade, pro-freedom underpinnings, but different approaches for different countries makes sense to me as well.
What doesn't make sense, is attacking free trade, economic opportunity, and the creation of a middle class in a formerly impoverished country as pro-communist.
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
On the other hand, we could encourage trade and relations with a country. We could try to build a middle class through economic opportunity and freedom with the knowledge that large middle classes usually rebel (although not always violently) against totalitarian leadership. For current examples see China and Russia.
You're not old enough to remember this firsthand, but look up, and describe, our trade policy with the Soviet Union. Not "post-Soviet Russia," the Soviet Union.
Then tell me what percentage of the Chinese middle class is in revolt against the PRC; how large that middle class is; whether we are trading with them as a means to beat their communism, rather than to exploit their markets; and tell me who is rebelling against the PRC, and what their demands are.
Then provide me a single instance of mass, middle class revolt against Communist leadership.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
The Soviet Union was isolated (although large enough to create many goods itself). Russia, today, is prodded through efforts to create growth and opportunity (however much Putin tries to destroy those efforts).
The PRC has rolled back many aspects of communism, especially the most draconian economic restrictions. The question is whether, over time, that growing economic freedom will translate into demands for political freedom.
And I thought I was clear that middle classes rarely violently revolt against anything. But their demands become stronger and even technically unrepresentative leadership begins to respond to them. The incorporation of businesses into the PRC leadership is an example of this pressure impacting leadership. It's a slower and less spectacular method of changing a country's institutions, but that doesn't mean it is futile.
China has moved more people out of poverty over the past 20 years than any other continent in the history of mankind (approx. 400 million) over a similar period. I do think it is a matter of time before the PRC allows even more local representation and access to power to the emerging middle class.
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth
I understood what you wrote. But there's a problem: Post-Soviet Russia is not and was not Communist. It's therefore utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Russia, today, is prodded through efforts to create growth and opportunity (however much Putin tries to destroy those efforts).
Russia is a dying kleptocracy that is not prodded at any meaningful level.
The PRC has rolled back many aspects of communism, especially the most draconian economic restrictions. The question is whether, over time, that growing economic freedom will translate into demands for political freedom.
The PRC has adopted fascism as its governing model, to exploit what we provide it. I'm not sure this is a desirable change. It's certainly not what most people mean by engaging communism to undermine it.
And I thought I was clear that middle classes rarely violently revolt against anything. But their demands become stronger and even technically unrepresentative leadership begins to respond to them. The incorporation of businesses into the PRC leadership is an example of this pressure impacting leadership. It's a slower and less spectacular method of changing a country's institutions, but that doesn't mean it is futile.
You still haven't given me an example.
China has moved more people out of poverty over the past 20 years than any other continent in the history of mankind (approx. 400 million) over a similar period. I do think it is a matter of time before the PRC allows even more local representation and access to power to the emerging middle class.
China has moved more people out of grinding poverty. It has not created a large middle class. There's a difference. And I'd love if you were right about the future of China; it would be without historic precedent, contrary to their national character, and an utter surprise to any student of history or modern politics.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
China is communist? Sure, like modern-day Russia, it has elements of a command economy. Sure, also like modern-day Russia, there are strong state controls on capital and foreign investment (although, unlike Russia, China continues to have a functioning legal system that protects such investments from state plunder). And, like modern-day Russia, China is certainly authoritarian -- although, again, probably less authoritarian than modern Russia, which is quickly returning to its former evil empirehood. But to call modern China "communist" is to elevate form over substance, which is not a useful way to begin a debate on trade policy.
And all of this is without even touching on Adam C.'s quite reasonable response to the good Representative's hyperventilations.
von
p.s. Thomas, love the tagline.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
Read down the comment thread, though above yours, and see where I talk about the PRC's governing model.
Two other points.
First, it's a tad ... generous to say that the PRC's legal system prevents state capture of private property. I suppose if we overlook a lot of their activities in the nineties and the first part of this century, you'd be right.
Second, Adam's response only makes sense if you ignore the data we have at hand.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Then tell me what percentage of the Chinese middle class is in revolt against the PRC; how large that middle class is; whether we are trading with them as a means to beat their communism, rather than to exploit their markets; and tell me who is rebelling against the PRC, and what their demands are.
Why is there a need to revolt? Is the Chinese middle class being deprived of meaningful work and useful things? No, its members have grown in number and ability to consume. City living for the Chinese working class, while problematic in many ways, is much easier than life on the farm. The Chinese worker has seen his or her wages increase severalfold; jobs are easy to get; and consumer goods and services are available. You'll see modest revolts among certain religious groups, but there has been no wide-scale revolt because the Chinese people are, in very broad terms, getting what they demand without it.
You asking for evidence when it is the absence of evidence that is meaningful.
None of this is to say, of course, that China is a model country, our friend, or harmless (even, "mostly harmless"). Indeed, the main reason why I favor building up the US military and lending greater support to India (as well as Japan's newfound nationalism) is because I view China as a significant possible threat. But all this does not mean that I favor trade restrictions with China in some ill-advised attempt at punishment or coercion. I carry my big stick, but I also speak softly. That's not a contradictory approach: it's a wise one.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
There's a funny story behind the typo, which I won't bore you with.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
Why is there a need to revolt? Is the Chinese middle class being deprived of meaningful work and useful things?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you understand I was referring to Adam's assertion that a middle class necessarily revolts against tyranny? And do you get that I was, perhaps, suggesting that China's middle class, such as it is, is perfectly ok with tyranny as long as they get their goods; and that the only people rebelling are the ones who are still have-nots, and are demanding the very thing Adam claims they'd reject?
You'll see modest revolts among certain religious groups, but there has been no wide-scale revolt because the Chinese people are, in very broad terms, getting what they demand without it.
Actually, Sinology is a part-time hobby of mine. You'll see a lot of revolts that have nothing to do with religion, and have a lot to do with economic inefficiencies and central command creating a lot of displacement.
You asking for evidence when it is the absence of evidence that is meaningful.
No, my enemy, my ally. (Moe will get that reference.) I'm asking Adam to prove that middle classes by definition revolt against tyranny, whether violently or not. The absence of that evidence proves my point -- that trading with tyrannies takes pressure off of them, and allows the middle class to make the easy compromise of material wealth for freedom.
Indeed, the main reason why I favor building up the US military and lending greater support to India (as well as Japan's newfound nationalism) is because I view China as a significant possible threat.
They are not a possible threat. Every year for the last ten years, the PLA has spent a lot of time and effort drafting white papers analyzing how and why to destroy us. The PLA does not publish without the central committees' go-ahead. For the twenty or thirty years it will take them to collapse for demographic reasons, they are our enemy.
But all this does not mean that I favor trade restrictions with China in some ill-advised attempt at punishment or coercion. I carry my big stick, but I also speak softly. That's not a contradictory approach: it's a wise one.
I'm old-fashioned: I oppose trading with monsters (Google "lao gai"); I oppose making it easier for tyrants to oppress their people; and I oppose giving my mortal enemies access to the only thing giving me an edge over them.
In other words, your approach is a foolish one.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Not to put too fine a point on it, but do you understand I was referring to Adam's assertion that a middle class necessarily revolts against tyranny? And do you get that I was, perhaps, suggesting that China's middle class, such as it is, is perfectly ok with tyranny as long as they get their goods; and that the only people rebelling are the ones who are still have-nots, and are demanding the very thing Adam claims they'd reject?
I'm having a very tough time following you. Adam never asserted that "a middle class necessarily revolts against tyranny" (indeed, he said pretty much the opposite).
My best understanding of your position is that (1) the Chinese middle class are not revolting because they have successfully influenced the Chinese communist party to modify the regime in ways that are pleasing to them (including by allowing greater freedom) and (2) the Chinese have therefore been bribed into accepting tyranny. All of us agree with (1). The question seems to be whether we can use (1) to infer (2). I don't think we can; among other things, the Chinese have not so much been bribed into accepting tyranny as successfully influencing the state to become less tyrannical. The lack of a middle class revolt (or concurrent crackdown) is evidence of success, not failure.
No, my enemy, my ally. (Moe will get that reference.) I'm asking Adam to prove that middle classes by definition revolt against tyranny, whether violently or not.
Since Adam never wrote that "middle classes by definition revolt against tyranny", I don't know why you're asking him to prove it.
They are not a possible threat. Every year for the last ten years, the PLA has spent a lot of time and effort drafting white papers analyzing how and why to destroy us. The PLA does not publish without the central committees' go-ahead. For the twenty or thirty years it will take them to collapse for demographic reasons, they are our enemy.
Yes, and we've been drafting up plans to invade Iran, North Korea, Russian, and likely China too. When words of these plans get out, the more excitable on the left goes all atwitter that we're about to invade. But the sober minds -- both left and right -- realize that this is a necessary component of military planning.
I'm old-fashioned: I oppose trading with monsters (Google "lao gai"); I oppose making it easier for tyrants to oppress their people; and I oppose giving my mortal enemies access to the only thing giving me an edge over them.
I'm not going to argue with your peculiar view of what it means to be "old fashioned" or your apparent view that the Chinese are "monsters." I will note that, although you may be a very perceptive Sino-watcher in some areas, it does not appear as though you're aware of the actual business reality of trading with China. Indeed, if we were to cease all trade with China, we'd not only injure the Chinese but also grievously harm Taiwan. (Many Chinese exporters are actually subsidiaries or have relationships with Taiwanese companies; Taiwan takes the orders and then subcontracts out the work to affiliated companies on the mainland.)
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
The problem with the starve them out tactic is that it does not work unless everyone else is starving them out also. The best example of this is Cuba. There have been 10 Presidents who have tried to starve the Castro regime to death and none of them have any luck since the rest of the world does not follow suit. The only way you can truly starve a regime like Castro's is if the entire world goes along with it.
Post invasion Iraq and post revolution Iran are other good examples of this. Some states take measures against them while others come in and fill the void left open.
If the United States abandons its relationships with these nations, it will not hurt them in the long run as they will find new markets, but it will hurt us as we lost trading partners.
I would take this a step further actually. We need to begin to open relations with Cuba because the nearly half century long policy of starving Castro has not worked. Now I am not saying give them a free trade agreement, but this embargo is not working. A new course must be found.
If its bad for Cuba, it should be bad for China and vice versa.
The problem is that China provides cheap labor and so the eco-cons (read club for growthers and most of the editors here) are more than willing to make an exception for China.
Signature disclaimer: I'm not currently paid by any campaign, but I am available. Current preferences for President: 1) F.Thompson; 2) Romney; 3) Guiliani; 4) McCain; 5) Gingrich
isolation and embargo, do not work to topple regimes, in fact they only play into the hands of the dictatorship.
Trade brings leverage, and a peep hole into a closed society.
We should jettison the foolish embargo we now have on Cuba.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Thaddeus,
To put it rather bluntly, the world no longer needs the US. A lot of the world really likes the US and would appreciate the chance to do business with us, but they aren't going to curl up and die if we say no.
In 1946, there was only 1 legitimate industrial super power that wasn't rebuilding. Now, at least 15 different countries can make any industrial product the USA can make. A lot of them make it cheaper, a couple even do most things better.
Thus, there is no shutting other people out, or jacking up tariffs to protect obsolete industries or less-than-efficient work processes.
Kyoto Now! (Because only pollution from the US hurts the planet)
The question we must all ask is whether the Communist regime in China is actually a communist regime or an capitalist oligarchic authoritarian state?
The China of today is not a Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, or Maoist state. Communism in China is a fascade and the true believes have no power anymore.
It resembles pre-World War I Germany more than anything else. Exercising strict trade policies with them only caused them tensions between them and the British/French.
Admittedly, China produces goods cheaper than many other places, but give it twenty years and we will be getting cheap goods from somewhere else. Japan and Korea used to be sources of cheap goods for us. Now they are fully post-industrial economies. China will arrive at this state soon enough.
At least that's my prediction.
Sure, the billion or so people still trapped under Asian and Latin American communism might quibble about how our moral duty to emancipate them, too, was unfinished.
Since when does America as a nation have a "moral duty" to emancipate the people of other nations? What other "moral duties" does America then have to assume are our burden, if merely engineering democracy in currently communist nations is one of them? A moral duty to prevent and stop genocide wherever it may occur? A moral duty to feed the hungry wherever they are? I'm quite happy to see American citizens work toward whatever ends they feel are moral duties for themselves - but the only duty American government has is that to the American people, the preservation and extension of American superiority as the world's single superpower (long may it remain so). We do far more to meet that duty by engaging all nations and taking advantage of free and open trade.
To some extent don't China, Vietnam, and Cuba - especially the latter - show the futility of attempting to "overthrow" a regime by merely refusing to trade?
And isn't one of the best guarantees of mutual stability and longterm peace the establishment of strong interdependence between nations, a web of support wherein any given nation has much more to lose from cutting its ties and going to war rather than finding a resolution to disagreement that maintains the supportive links of trade?
And as current "king of the hill" - doesn't the United States have, in fact, the most to benefit from being linked to as many (inter)dependant nations as possible - who grow to perceive that their relationship with the United States is vital to their own prosperity - moreso than they might ever come to perceive the United States as being some kind of threat?
Another popular GOP justification for trading with totalitarians is these communist countries’ peoples are now prosperous and secure.
I think this line of thought expresses the idea that any given people of a nation would be better off for having us purposefully collapse a regime and attempt to bring about something better on the foreign people's behalf. Or at least, that our doing so is a more correct approach than allowing that nation's people to determine their own course of action via impatient revolution or patient change over a longer period of time.
I disagree. What you see as a capitalistic rush to "grow rich without regard to human suffering", I see as a right and proper prioritization of American citizens over those of foreign nations. Of course, such a prioritization need not mean that our government condones, for example, American enslavement of foreign nationals to sweep our floors. But if American prosperity indirectly causes the prosperity of another nation's populace, what are you worrying about? That their form of government is objectionable to you? Say it all you want, persuade and cajole that populace to change their situation, but don't enjoin America's government to act as your planetary moral police force.
Any such intervention is likely to have very unpredictable results - there's no guarantee when the people will end up better off than they were before, nor how long they must endure some period of chaos after the collapse. And there's just as much of an opportunity for America to come out looking like savior knights as there is to look like clumsy nightwatchmen. On the other hand, being an amenable trade partner - infiltrating the culture via non-aggressive commerce and communication - allows us to demonstrate the superiority of our way of life both from an economic and foreign policy standpoint.
But hey, you are a genuine congressperson afterall. Seeing as how you introduced a bill making March the "National Kidney Cancer Awareness Month", perhaps you really can properly prioritize the issues facing America today. Carry on!
After all, he can't look up your details on the web in order to track down the silly stuff that you have to do as part of your job.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Whether any congressperson actually HAS to do silly stuff like national so-and-so month resolutions, and all those other timewasters like expressing the sense of the House that so-and-so national champion football team displayed the utmost character in their victory in the Blah Bowl, etc etc...
But you're right, it was uncalled for, and I do apologize to the guy for the heat of the moment capturing my reasonable judgement, thanks.
We can trade with China AND be anti-communist. So far, we are successfully corrupting their failed ideology by encouraging them to open up their markets and to embrace private ownership. The difference between Soviet Russia and present-day China is that our trade and our economy are inextricably linked with China's, like it or not. If we take measures to hurt them economically, we end up hurting ourselves.
Sucking and ruining since October 2003.
As Charles says, we can be anti-communist and still in favor of trade. The problem I think, as Congressman McCotter seems to be getting to, as that we are often much more free trade than anti-communist.
It's no secret that the Chinese are trying to undermine us and our foreign and defense policies. But I see no visible, tangible signs that we are doing the same.
And we seem to be ignoring Taiwan.
It's no secret that the Chinese are trying to undermine us and our foreign and defense policies. But I see no visible, tangible signs that we are doing the same.
So are the French. Do we stop trading with them too?
In any event, the Chinese certainly don't feel that we've taken a hands-off approach to China's foreign and defense. And the fact that we have a large naval presence right off the Chinese coast and a significant military presence just outside North Korea are probably more threatening then you give credit for.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
We should not be so kind to the French, but the French aren't showing a combination of nationalistic/imperialistic tendencies right now. The Chinese are.
Have we all forgotten about their forcing down of our spy plane and holding our soldiers much like the Iranians have just done?
The Capitalist will sell you the rope you hang him with. In the centers of power in China, the communist leaders must be laughing themselves silly, even while they use our technology to shoot down satellites and build their military.
We are dominated by Nixonian thinkers who believe our trade will bring down totalitarian regimes. So free trade no matter what, even if its against the interests of the United States.
Yet we must never forget that what brought the Soviet Union down was the arms race and the fact that the Soviet Empire finally died of indigestion for all the different peoples and nations that made it up in Russia and Eastern Europe. Also a moral understanding that communism did not work and was itself immoral, something Reagan deserves much more credit for than he has ever been given. The GAP jeans, rock and roll, and wheat we traded with them had very little to do with it.
his political pals were peddling. Reagan was the only real president we've had since Ike.
Why don't we come up with ways of being anti-Communist that don't center on taxing Americans, or increasing the specter of socialism or statism at home in general, shall we?
Run like Reagan!
Exactly right Neil. The American people should not be punished with more big government. The more the government can get out of international trade, the better.
No worries in this case, but it can set off warning bells among the moderators.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Yes I know. My internet connection has been acting funny over the last hour or two so I was not sure if the post went through the first time or not.
to wage economic warfare on China for being Communist was before we sold them >$300 billion in U.S. Treasury notes and >$1 trillion in dollar-denominated assets.
Maybe the time to cut off trade was before we became dependent on their investment dollars to keep our annual trade and budget deficits covered (w/out skyrocketing interest rates).
They're our creditors. We rely on their continued willingness to buy (and hold) our debt. It doesn't mean we lack leverage entirely. But it does tie our hands more than a little bit.
Undoubtedly this relationship isn't serving our own long-term interests. But it's largely a function of other policy choices we've made for ourselves. Anyone who thinks we should up and stop "bartering with butchers" should step forward and accept the economic consequences for himself.
We should hold the people accountable who put us (or allowed us) to end up in this situation.
you're "helping the other side win" or "sitting on your hands" or "cutting your nose to spite your face" or "surrendering".
Or all the other things I heard here before the last election.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
"Maybe the time to cut off trade was before we became dependent on their investment dollars to keep our annual trade and budget deficits covered (w/out skyrocketing interest rates)."
Go look here. Return with a better understanding. We could buy back all of their Treasuries in under a year.
Personally, I wish they held 10 times what they hold. The old saying is if you owe the bank $100,000, it owns you. Owe it $100,000,000, you own it.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Isn't the BEST time to twist at them a bit, when we have their reserves in the palm of our hands?
I mean what are they going to do, burn their bonds in protest?
Run like Reagan!
MFN for China wasn't pro-Communist or anti-Communist. It was an is pro-American and pro-Freedom, because it's a tax cut pure and simple.
Republicans need to be anti-Communist, but we also need to remain firmly anti-tax as well, and that means no tax hikes on trade and in fact fighting to continue lowering taxes on trade, the same as we fight for low and lower taxes on everything else.
Run like Reagan!