Why Protectionism Should Be the Status Quo, By Paul Walker
In an era of global interconnectedness, we're told by politicians, economists, and pundits alike that free trade is the key to prosperity. Yet history shows that no good idea is immune to the corrupting influence of success. When politicians, rather than citizens, seize upon a noble idea and use it for their own gain, the results are often disastrous. Take the example of privatisation in Russia: the promise of moving away from communism was quickly hijacked by those who saw it as an opportunity to loot the nation's wealth, with little regard for the people. The result? A deep mistrust of privatisation itself, even though a true, moral privatisation could have worked wonders. The same risk exists for protectionism today.
In the wake of Donald Trump's rise to power, protectionism has been thrust into the spotlight, often under dubious circumstances. While Trump's version may not be the purest form of protectionism, it has ignited a passionate debate—one that, in my view, needs to centre around the true, virtuous form of protectionism, which stands in opposition to the destructive forces of free trade and globalisation.
Protectionism, often misunderstood and maligned, is not inherently about building walls or isolating oneself from the world. It's about maintaining control over a nation's economic and cultural destiny. Let's examine why protectionism should be the status quo, with trade reserved for only the most necessary purposes.
Protectionism has three major, intertwined justifications: economic power, military power, and cultural preservation. Let's start with the last one, as it often gets glossed over in discussions about trade policy.
Economic systems and technologies shape societies in profound ways. One of the most striking examples of this in the modern West is the urban-rural divide. Cities, teeming with liberal ideas, often produce a homogenous, hive-mind culture that leans heavily Left. Meanwhile, rural areas retain more conservative values, rooted in traditional industries like agriculture. This divide isn't just a political quirk—it's a cultural chasm, one that can widen when economic policies encourage urbanisation and globalism.
Thomas Jefferson, who believed in the moral and economic superiority of agriculture, warned against allowing too many people to be drawn into manufacturing and industry. He saw the rural class as the bedrock of virtuous society, while he believed that dependence on distant markets for goods could corrupt both individuals and the nation. In his view, a society based on agriculture was not only more morally sound but also more politically stable, as it kept citizens grounded in their local communities and less subject to the whims of distant, global elites.
Cultural preservation, in this case, means protecting a way of life from the corrosive effects of unchecked industrialisation and global trade. When entire societies are uprooted and forced into dependency on foreign goods, their cultural coherence and political stability are at risk. This, then, is one reason why protectionism is not just an economic policy but a cultural imperative.
Economic power is another fundamental reason for protectionism. A nation that depends on foreign goods and services is vulnerable. The rise of China is a perfect example of how free trade, if mismanaged, can lead to the erosion of domestic industries and an over-reliance on foreign powers. As we saw in the 20th century, Britain's embrace of free trade during the Victorian era ultimately weakened its ability to maintain a strong military, as it became increasingly dependent on other nations for key resources and goods. By the time of World War I, the British Isles, once the pinnacle of industrial power, were dependent on imports for basic necessities. Had Britain embraced protectionism more fully, it might have better preserved its economic and military power, even in the face of rising competition from Germany and the United States.
Today, nations like Saudi Arabia use petrodollars to purchase advanced military technology, while others, like Taiwan and South Korea, have recognised the importance of semiconductor production for national security. The lesson is clear: a nation's military and economic strength are deeply connected. Without economic independence, a nation is at the mercy of foreign powers. Protectionism can prevent this by ensuring that key industries, from energy to technology, remain under national control.
There's a direct link between economic power and military power. Nations that maintain control over essential industries can more easily mobilise for defence in times of war. World War II is a case in point. The United States, with its massive industrial base, was able to convert civilian manufacturing capacity into military production, turning the tide in the war. Without such economic self-sufficiency, the US may have been unable to keep pace with Germany's military buildup, and the outcome of the war might have been different.
This relationship is crucial today, as the global balance of power shifts. Countries like China and Russia have been steadily expanding their military capabilities, often relying on domestic production to avoid the vulnerabilities of global supply chains. For the US and other nations to maintain their sovereignty, they must prioritise their own economic and military independence, something that free trade and globalism undermine.
While the arguments for protectionism are strong, it's crucial to differentiate between true protectionism and crony capitalism, which often masquerades as protectionism. True protectionism aims to protect national interests and promote the welfare of citizens, while crony capitalism serves only the elites, enabling them to manipulate trade policies for their benefit.
For protectionism to succeed, it must be implemented with an eye toward fairness and sustainability. The goal should be to encourage domestic industries without creating monopolies or fostering dependence on government subsidies. Protectionism should not be about keeping inefficient industries alive at all costs; it should be about ensuring that vital industries—especially those related to defence, energy, and technology—remain in domestic hands.
Protectionism isn't about rejecting all trade; it's about rejecting the notion that globalism, free trade, and open borders are inherently good. When done right, protectionism can preserve cultural identity, economic independence, and military power. It can ensure that nations are not left vulnerable to the whims of foreign powers or multinational corporations. The world is changing rapidly, and the time has come for nations to rethink their reliance on global supply chains and embrace policies that protect their sovereignty.
If we are to survive the challenges ahead—be it economic turmoil, geopolitical tensions, or cultural erosion—protectionism, not free trade, must become the status quo. By reserving trade for what is absolutely necessary and protecting our vital industries, we can ensure that our nations remain strong, independent, and free from the pressures of a globalist agenda. Australia is going 180 degrees in the wrong direction with the globalism of the Albanese government. It seems that more suffering is required for change.
Comments