A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days

It is generally agreed by those who are actually in the know when it comes to the specifics of trade policy and how free trade genuinely benefits America that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are moving Heaven and Earth to pander to protectionists for votes. But as Daniel Ikenson points out, in the runup to tonight's primaries in Indiana and North Carolina, both pandering to free traders is the smart thing to do:

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Indiana's producers shipped $26 billion worth of goods to foreign customers in 2007 -- 14 percent more than the year before, and 80 percent more than in 2001. In fact, since 2001, the state's exports have grown at a rate one-third faster than U.S. exports overall. In North Carolina, producers shipped $23 billion worth of goods to foreign customers in 2007 -- 10 percent more than the year before, and 59 percent more than five years ago.

In 2007, exports accounted for 20 percent of U.S. manufacturers' total sales revenues -- the highest percentage in modern history. And nowhere in America is manufacturing more important to the economy than in Indiana, where the sector accounts for over 30 percent of the state's gross domestic product. Manufacturing is also more important to North Carolina's economy than it is to most other states, accounting for 22 percent of the state's gross domestic product, ranking it fifth among states in that measure.

In China, Canada, and Mexico -- the primary villains in the candidates' anti-trade narratives -- Indiana's producers are building relationships that are yielding extraordinary returns. Exports from Indiana to China increased by a whopping 36 percent between 2006 and 2007 -- twice the rate of total U.S. export growth to China, and nearly four times Indiana's exports to China in 2001.

Likewise, Indiana's exports to Canada and Mexico have grown 9 percent from 2006 and 67 percent from 2001, eclipsing overall U.S. export growth to the NAFTA countries in both periods. North Carolina's exports to NAFTA have grown 46 percent over the past five years -- to $7.4 billion.

There is a lot more good news (which we wouldn't have around if protectionists had their way) when you click on the link. And lo and behold, it would seem that Ikenson's advice was taken:

Weeks after slamming the North American Free Trade Agreement in Ohio, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have retooled their messages for Indiana and North Carolina, states that have made gains from free trade amid losses elsewhere.

[. . .]

In the steel-producing region of northwest Indiana, the Democratic presidential candidates blamed China for the erosion of manufacturing jobs. But other parts of the state have witnessed an uptick in foreign investment and have positioned themselves as hubs for major distribution centers.

"We may not be able to bring back all the jobs we've lost because of trade, but we can create tomorrow's jobs in this country," Sen. Obama said last week at a high school in Indianapolis. At a steel factory in Munster, Ind., he told the crowd, "We're going to have to trade."

Nice to see that Clinton and Obama are part-time free traders, at least. But the problem is that they can just as easily be called part-time protectionists as well. And full-time free traders are needed to implement prosperity-inducing policies. I have no idea whether the free trade or protectionist versions of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton would inhabit the Oval Office and make decisions when it comes to trade policy. I do know, however, that John McCain has an impeccable trade record and that I have heard much too much protectionist talk from Clinton and Obama--not to mention a whole host of others in the Democratic Party--to be comfortable entrusting trade policy to them.