ROBERT LIGHTHIZER

Modern free-traders... embrace their ideal with a passion that makes Robespierre seem prudent. They embrace unbridled free trade, even as it helps China become a superpower.

Markets do not run better when manufacturing shifts to China largely because of the actions of its government. Nor do they become more efficient when Chinese companies are given special privileges in global markets, while American companies must struggle to compete with unfairly traded goods.

Conservative statesmen from Alexander Hamilton to Ronald Reagan sometimes supported protectionism, and at other times, they leaned toward lowering barriers. But they always understood that trade policy was merely a tool for building a strong and independent country with a prosperous middle class.

Years of passivity and drift among U.S. policymakers have allowed the U.S. - China trade deficit to grow to the point where is widely recognized as a major threat to our economy.

How does allowing China to constantly rig trade in its favor advance the core conservative goal of making markets more efficient?

I agree with President Trump that we should have an America First trade policy.

Every Republican president starting with Lincoln - and for almost 100 years thereafter - generally supported tariffs, while Democrats tended to promote free trade.

The recent blind faith some Republicans have shown toward free trade actually represents more of an aberration than a hallmark of true American conservatism. It's an anomaly that may well demand re-examination.

It is hard for me to understand why we tolerate so many barriers to agriculture trade when America is the No. 1 producer of agriculture products. I think opening up markets - more markets for agricultural sales is a very high priority for us.

While never the darling of pure free traders, measures to combat dumping, subsidies, and injurious import surges have always been deemed essential by open economies like the United States to maintain support for trade.

Unlike national legal systems, there are precious few avenues to address judicial activism at the WTO. You pretty much have to gain consensus to change the agreements, or simply withdraw from the system. The first is nearly impossible, and the second would be - in the view of many - cataclysmic.

How does allowing China to constantly rig trade in its favor advance the core conservative goal of making markets more efficient?

While never the darling of pure free traders, measures to combat dumping, subsidies, and injurious import surges have always been deemed essential by open economies like the United States to maintain support for trade.

Markets do not run better when manufacturing shifts to China largely because of the actions of its government. Nor do they become more efficient when Chinese companies are given special privileges in global markets, while American companies must struggle to compete with unfairly traded goods.

It is hard for me to understand why we tolerate so many barriers to agriculture trade when America is the No. 1 producer of agriculture products. I think opening up markets - more markets for agricultural sales is a very high priority for us.

Every Republican president starting with Lincoln - and for almost 100 years thereafter - generally supported tariffs, while Democrats tended to promote free trade.

I agree with President Trump that we should have an America First trade policy.

Modern free-traders... embrace their ideal with a passion that makes Robespierre seem prudent. They embrace unbridled free trade, even as it helps China become a superpower.

The recent blind faith some Republicans have shown toward free trade actually represents more of an aberration than a hallmark of true American conservatism. It's an anomaly that may well demand re-examination.

Years of passivity and drift among U.S. policymakers have allowed the U.S. - China trade deficit to grow to the point where is widely recognized as a major threat to our economy.

Conservative statesmen from Alexander Hamilton to Ronald Reagan sometimes supported protectionism, and at other times, they leaned toward lowering barriers. But they always understood that trade policy was merely a tool for building a strong and independent country with a prosperous middle class.