{"id":321,"date":"2016-05-15T03:09:34","date_gmt":"2016-05-15T03:09:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thereisnewsinthetruth.com\/?p=321"},"modified":"2018-01-20T03:32:03","modified_gmt":"2018-01-20T03:32:03","slug":"mark-levin-vs-julia-hahn","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thereisnewsinthetruth.com\/?p=321","title":{"rendered":"Mark Levin vs Julia Hahn"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"TrumpifiedReagan300\"So the trade wars have begun.\u00a0 Mark Levin says that Reagan was for free-trade.\u00a0\u00a0Julia Hahn\u00a0says that Reagan was actually a protectionist.\u00a0 Who’s right?\u00a0 I have to say that the latest article by Julia is very well written, very sophisticated, very well sourced out with quotes and references to back her up.\u00a0 And when I first read it, I got to admit\u00a0I was shaken up a bit and thought, “Maybe Levin isn’t quite right about what he’s been saying about trade?”\u00a0 But I went outside and did some work and chewed on all this and read the article again.\u00a0 It took me a while, but I see now that this article, though it’s convincing, is still nothing more than manipulative Trump propaganda.\u00a0 With a little bit of brain power, a common man like me can see this for what it really is.\u00a0 So I quoted the entire article and I added my notes in an italicized red font to explain what really is going on.\u00a0 <\/em><\/span>I know trade talk is boring and doesn’t really make ratings on the cable networks; but it is important.\u00a0 So if you can endure it, please read on.\u00a0 Here’s the entire article:<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Hillary Pledges Open Borders, Levin Responds with Attack on Trump\u2019s Tariffs<\/strong><\/h1>\n

by Julia Hahn, 14 May 2016<\/strong><\/p>\n

First of all, the title of this states that Levin is responding to Hillary’s pledge to open borders with an attack on Trump’s Tariffs.\u00a0 So right off the bat, Julia starts by lying.\u00a0 Levin is not responding to Hillary pledge, but he’s responding to Trump’s pledge.\u00a0 Julia is implying that open borders is an issue that\u00a0Levin doesn’t care about, or perhaps\u00a0Levin doesn’t see the horror of Hillary’s view on immigration.\u00a0 Julia seems to think that because Levin is for free-trade, that somehow that makes him an open-border advocate, which most people who listen to Levin know that is absolutely absurd.\u00a0 All that is simple deflection.\u00a0 Julie is doing exactly what she’s accusing Levin of doing.\u00a0 Julia is bringing attention to another subject to distract from the subject at hand due to a personal motive to smear Levin.<\/span><\/em>
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

Last week, Donald Trump met<\/span><\/u><\/a> with the family members<\/span><\/u><\/a> of Sarah Root, a beautiful, beaming 21-year-old girl slaughtered by an illegal alien in Nebraska the day after graduating from college with 4.0 GPA. Later that day, Trump warned<\/span><\/u><\/a>, \u201cCrooked Hillary Clinton wants completely open borders.\u201d<\/h2>\n

So Levin doesn’t care about Sarah Root or her family because he’s trying to shed some light on Trump’s trade plan or at least bring it to the forefront of people’s minds.\u00a0 Of course illegal immigration is how Trump bursted on the scene; it’s his supposed strongest subject.\u00a0 So, anytime anyone questions Mr. Trump they pound the immigration drum.\u00a0 Anytime Mr. Trump was slipping in the polls, they pounded the immigration drum.\u00a0 I remember on Breitbart, before every primary, they’d splash several illegal immigration stories across their website.\u00a0 So this is par for the course.\u00a0 Also, please note that Julia is politicizing the Sarah Root tragedy in order to smear Levin.\u00a0 Deflection and politicization are tools of liberals.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Indeed, a review of Clinton\u2019s campaign website<\/span><\/u><\/a> reveals that her immigration plan is even more radical than that of Barack Obama, who completely suspended enforcement<\/span><\/u><\/a> of America\u2019s immigration law and printed hundreds of thousands of work permits for illegal aliens.<\/p>\n

However, a much more pressing topic seems to have triggered the passions of radio host Mark Levin who, along with Jamie Weinstein, is one of the most vocal members of the #NeverTrump movement. In the course of two days, Levin penned two lengthy denunciations of Trump\u2019s trade platform and Breitbart News\u2019s\u00a0<\/span><\/em>coverage of it<\/span><\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n

In a story featured on this website<\/span><\/u><\/a>, Levin emotionally warns conservative Americans that Trump\u2019s effort to boost American manufacturing represents a kind of existential threat to conservatism. It\u00a0IS<\/strong> an existential threat to conservatism.\u00a0 Tariffs is a government-handed solution to unfair trade.\u00a0 Conservatives believe that government is not the solution, but rather government is the problem.<\/span><\/em>\u00a0 Levin is seemingly unconcerned with the prospect that his energetic Trump-bashing could help place Hillary Clinton in a position to add millions more Third World migrants to America, who almost certainly will not support Levin\u2019s vision of smaller government conservatism nor tune in to his radio show where he espouses the same.\u00a0 Just because someone disagrees with Trump does not mean that they are responsible for Hillary taking the White House.\u00a0 Trumpsters are going to repeat this over and over and over.\u00a0 I whole-heartedly disagree.\u00a0 Those who vaulted him to the nomination bear the responsibility if he wins or\u00a0loses.\u00a0 Trumpsters were warned.\u00a0 The RNC was warned.\u00a0 All that should have been considered before the votes were cast.\u00a0 Elections have consequences.\u00a0 As Ted Cruz said, “You broke it, you bought it.”<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

“…Levin’s vision of smaller government conservatism<\/strong>…”\u00a0 Huh? \u00a0This possibly exposes more about Julia\u00a0than anything else.\u00a0 I didn’t know there was another type of conservatism that wasn’t smaller government conservatism; as if you can have big government conservatism.\u00a0\u00a0Do you see how they are attempting to redefine conservatism.\u00a0\u00a0Do you remember that Trumpster women, Kayleigh McEnany, that Dana Loesch was bashing?\u00a0 What did Kayleigh say that got Dana got so mad about?\u00a0 She said that anybody that doesn’t support Trump is not truly a conservative.\u00a0 They are actively trying to redefine conservatism.\u00a0 Ironically, this is the very reason<\/span><\/em> Savage advocated for a nationalist candidate.\u00a0 Savage said that conservatism doesn’t mean anything anymore.\u00a0 Well, now we got a nationalist candidate and his crowd is actively redefining conservatism, and demonizing true conservatives. Is that what you wanted, Savage?<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

One of the enduring mysteries of the #NeverTrump movement now that their preferred vessels\u2014 John Kasich and Ted Cruz\u2014 have exited the race is why they seem to believe that Trump\u2019s \u201cAmerica First\u201d platform represents a greater threat to conservatism than Clinton\u2019s agenda of massive government, massive taxation, and massive Third World migration.\u00a0 This is straw-man crud.\u00a0 Nobody believes that Trump’s platform is a greater threat to conservatism than Clinton’s platform.\u00a0 There may be a few (very few) people out there that believe that.\u00a0 In fact, the only people that have even suggested this that I can recall are establishment elite’s like Boehner.\u00a0 Conservatives don’t believe that and have never suggested that.\u00a0 A threat to conservatism is a threat to conservatism; no matter what party it comes from.\u00a0 This is just another ploy to somehow paint conservatives that don’t like Trump into some straw-man that supports Hillary and is really in league with the establishment.\u00a0 There’s no such thing.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Trump is a \u201cradical protectionist\u201d whose trade policy would result in \u201ceconomic misery\u201d for nearly \u201ceveryone,\u201d Levin warns<\/span><\/u><\/a> conservatives:<\/p>\n

The billionaire\u00a0is a radical protectionist who has repeatedly declared his intention to impose massive tariffs aimed at the economies of other countries, such as\u00a0Japan and Mexico, and a forty-five percent tariff on products\u00a0from China.\u00a0Such broad tariffs would most certainly result in retaliation by the targeted countries.\u00a0This is a sure job-killer that would also drive up costs of everyday products to low- and middle-class Americans.\u00a0The net result: economic misery, not just for those hard-working, tax-paying Americans who work in industries that rely on international commerce and trade, but mostly everyone.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Levin lays out his economic theory, which leads him to his conclusion: namely, Trump\u2019s expressed willingness to protect American industries against specific countries would result in higher prices for U.S. consumers and thus ensure economic hardship. Levin writes<\/span><\/u><\/a>:<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Remember, a tariff is really just a tax, the cost of which is imposed on the American people.\u00a0 The higher the tariff, the higher the tax.\u00a0 Imagine what a 45 percent increase in the price of goods made, say, in Japan would do to a middle class family shopping for a Toyota or Honda.\u00a0 \u00a0While Trump and his surrogates may have the money to pay the higher prices his policies would cause, many Americans \u2013 who are already having difficulty making ends meet \u2013 do not.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Levin makes no mention of the fact that if you raised the price of a Toyota by 45 percent, presumably Americans would not pay 45 percent more for a Toyota, but would instead buy a Ford, and that as Ford\u2019s sales went up, the marginal cost of production would go down.<\/p>\n

This sentence really is the only argument that Julia offers in defense of Trump’s trade theory, or as an answer to Mark Levin’s trade theory.\u00a0 That’s it.\u00a0 This is the only example or argument or attempt to disclaim Levin’s views on trade.\u00a0 The rest of the article Julia concentrates on Ronald Reagan and\u00a0attempts to cast Reagan as a protectionist.\u00a0 But as far as inflation goes,\u00a0higher prices, and such, this is\u00a0it.\u00a0 This simplistic example is really all she has.\u00a0 I mean is this it?\u00a0 This is all you got?<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

So first off,\u00a0Toyota is already producing vehicles in the United States.\u00a0 This is not even a good example.\u00a0 But even if it was, what about all the local Toyota dealerships that would go out of business?\u00a0 And it’s not just Toyota.\u00a0 It’s Honda.\u00a0 It’s Kia.\u00a0 It’s Izuzu.\u00a0 It’s Nissan.\u00a0 All those dealerships and service companies would go belly up.\u00a0 These are dealerships, family owned and operated by Americans that are the ones that will get hurt.\u00a0 This will truly be another case of government elites picking winners and losers.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Secondly, what about the fact that a grand amount of the parts in the American made Ford are actually made in Japan or China.\u00a0 Julia thinks everything under that hood is made in America.\u00a0 Think again.\u00a0\u00a0She thinks Ford won’t be affected by this?\u00a0 Chevy?<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Thirdly, Julia assumes that a marginal cost of production going down would actually be passed on to the consumer, or the employee.\u00a0\u00a0Yeah right!\u00a0 You just keep believing that.\u00a0 I remember reading years ago that\u00a0what happened more times than not is that…\u00a0 Well, let me use a simple example.\u00a0 Trump imposes tariff on Toyota.\u00a0 Toyota’s price goes up.\u00a0 Ford, instead of keeping their price the same, they raise their price to match the Toyota price.\u00a0 Why?\u00a0 Because they can.\u00a0 So price goes up on Toyota 45%, but price goes up on Ford 44% and nothing changes but the price.\u00a0 There’s examples of this in history; the steel industry for one.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Fourth, she doesn’t address the topic of retaliation that Levin brings up:\u00a0 Trade Wars.\u00a0 They are very real, and Mark Levin does use history to back up what he’s saying.\u00a0 He refers to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of the Depression.\u00a0 Smoot and Hawley promised to relieve or protect the farming industry by applying these across the board tariffs on imported agriculture.\u00a0 Most historian seem to believe that these tariffs made the Depression worst.\u00a0 There’s a few out there that believe that it wasn’t necessarily the Smoot-Hawley tariffs.\u00a0 One thing can be agreed though:\u00a0 The Smoot-Hawley tariffs DID NOT DELIVER WHAT WAS PROMISED<\/strong>.\u00a0 Anyway, many countries imposed tariffs on us because of this maneuver and the whole world paid the price.\u00a0 <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Fifth, Levin has made it real clear that tariffs are hitting this problem from the wrong side.\u00a0 This is a heavy-handed government solution to unfair trade.\u00a0 Mexico is not killing American jobs.\u00a0 Canada is not killing American jobs.\u00a0 No.\u00a0 America is killing American jobs.\u00a0 With all the regulations, taxes, and liabilities associated with doing business, it’s\u00a0near impossible to compete with other countries.\u00a0 You don’t fix that by taxing the competition.\u00a0 You free up the American businesses.\u00a0 You deregulate them.\u00a0 You quit taxing them.\u00a0 You get out of the way and let Americans produce.\u00a0 We’re over taxed.\u00a0 And now you’re going to tax the competition and we’re supposed to pay for that too.\u00a0 Henry Ford begged Hoover not to sign the law, and called the Smoot-Hawley tariffs\u00a0“an economic stupidity!”.\u00a0 Yeah, so Julia doesn’t address that.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Sixth, this is it.\u00a0 This is really the only argument\u00a0Julia poses for Trump tariffs.\u00a0 She actually thinks it’s that simple.\u00a0 The rest of the article, she systematically tries to discredit Mark Levin on the basis that Reagan was not a “free-trade purist”, therefore Levin doesn’t know what he’s talking about even though Levin never asserted such a thing.\u00a0 Read for yourself.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Moreover, Levin\u2019s example (denouncing a 45% tariff on Japanese vehicles, which he imagines could be implemented by a President Trump) is completely analogous to an action Ronald Reagan took during his Presidency. As President, Reagan implemented a 45% tariff on Japanese motorcycles in order to save the Harley-Davidson Motor Company. To use Levin\u2019s words: \u201cImagine what a 45 percent increase in the price of goods made, say, in Japan would do to a middle class family shopping for a\u2026\u201d <\/em>motorcycle.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

A motorcycle is not… nevermind.\u00a0 I’ll let her finish her argument.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

A 1984 report notes that the \u201caverage dealer net price of a Harley-Davidson motorcycle\u201d was approximately $4,780\u2014or \u201c$890 more than the average dealer net price ($3,890) of Japanese-brand motorcycles in the 1000cc and over class, and $2,134 more than the average price ($2,546) of all Japanese- brand motorcycles in the 700 to 899cc class.\u201d<\/p>\n

Regardless, Levin attempts to defend Reagan\u2019s actions and distinguish Reagan\u2019s trade views from Trump\u2019s, writing:<\/p>\n

Reagan did not make wholesale protectionism and tariffs a central plank of his platform, as Trump does; nor did he support imposing high tariffs on every single product produced in a particular country.\u00a0 Actually, Reagan emphasized the opposite.\u00a0 Reagan\u2019s tariffs were targeted, including on Japanese motorcycles and semiconductors, and usually in response to specific violations of trade deals.\u00a0 Besides, Trump is a populist\/nationalist\/protectionist.\u00a0 Reagan was a conservative.\u00a0 There\u2019s a difference.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This has got to be the most disingenuous stupid arguments I’ve ever seen.\u00a0 \u00a0Julia will\u00a0attempt to take down Levin assertion that Reagan was not a protectionist.\u00a0 She’s trying to compare Reagan’s tariff on a particular industry to Trump’s across the board China or Japan tariffs.\u00a0 No they are NOT COMPLETELY ANALOGOUS<\/strong>.\u00a0 Comparing motorcycles to a whole nation of goods is stupid.\u00a0 Please. I can’t believe I actually gave some credence to this article when I first read it.\u00a0 I mean there’s really no point in going further because the rest is based on this fictitious COMPLETE ANALOGY<\/strong>.\u00a0 But let’s go into it anyway.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

However, Levin\u2019s argument is self-contradictory in two ways.<\/p>\n

First, Reagan\u2019s actions are completely irreconcilable with the economic principles that Levin has established: specifically, Levin\u2019s belief that an action which raises the price of imports is \u201ca sure job-killer that would also drive up costs of everyday products to low and middle-class Americans.\u00a0The net result: economic misery.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u00a0The economic theory Levin has laid out would prohibit action to raise the price of a foreign good to protect a domestic industry\u2014 exactly what Reagan did.<\/div>\n

Yet trade rules, by definition, are protectionist. NO DUH GENIUS!<\/strong><\/em><\/span>\u00a0 Any prohibition on an unfair subsidy is, at bottom, a prohibition on importing a good so cheaply that an American company has no chance of competing against it. However, by Levin\u2019s zero-sum argument that cheaper is necessarily better, none of these trade rules should exist or be enforced at all because to levy a tariff is to raise prices, and\u2014 by Levin\u2019s argument\u2014 damage the economy.<\/p>\n

Moreover, Reagan grounded his decisions in what Levin might define as \u201cprotectionist\u201d rhetoric.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe health and vitality of the U.S. semiconductor industry are essential to America\u2019s future competitiveness,\u201d Reagan said<\/span><\/u><\/a> in 1987 as he was implementing a 100% tariff on Japanese semiconductors. \u201cWe cannot allow it to be jeopardized by unfair trading practices.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI have determined that import relief in this case is consistent with our national economic interest. The domestic industry is threatened by serious injury because of increased imports,\u201d Reagan said<\/span><\/u><\/a> in 1983 as he was implementing his tariff on Japanese motorcycles. \u201cI have maintained that I would enforce our trade laws where necessary and where such actions are consistent with our international obligations.\u201d<\/p>\n

Reagan explained that protecting American industry is in the economic interests of the United States, even if it precludes the option of buying cheaper foreign goods. Reagan believed it was worth imposing a tariff for the purpose of ensuring that the American industry is able to survive. In other words, instead of letting the global market decide, Reagan applied a mercantilist approach saying the American producers should survive for the simple reason that they\u2019re American\u2014 not because it\u2019s cheaper, and not because it\u2019s necessarily better, though it may be, but because America is better off for having it made within our own borders.<\/p>\n

\u00a0This sentiment is simply incompatible with Levin\u2019s Cato-esque argument that the cheapest product should win the day.<\/div>\n
All this junk that is written above is based on her COMPLETE ANALOGY<\/strong>.\u00a0 Levin was comparing a\u00a0SPECIFIC<\/strong> commodity or industry and the protection of a\u00a0SPECIFIC<\/strong> American enterprise like Harley Davidson to ACROSS THE BOARD<\/strong> tariffs on countries like China and Japan, like Trump is proposing..\u00a0 The reasoning or ideology behind both are the same: protectionism and nationalism.\u00a0 Levin NEVER<\/strong> said that it wasn’t.\u00a0 He was simply saying that Reagan targeted specific industries or products and always explained to the American people why he was doing it.\u00a0 Levin explains well that tariffs was an exception with Reagan, not a rule like it is with Trump.\u00a0 And Juila really doesn’t address that. She just assumes that you agree with her\u00a0complete analogy and hopes that you don’t figure out that it’s not complete.\u00a0 In fact,\u00a0I think it’s one heck of a stretch.\u00a0 <\/em><\/span>Secondly, notice another straw-man she starts pounding:\u00a0 cheapest product should win the day straw-man.\u00a0 Mark Levin never said that the price was the end-all bottom line.\u00a0 Conservatives don’t believe that.\u00a0 I would venture to say that most conservatives of my flavor and Levin’s flavor would gladly pay a little more for an American made product when given the chance.\u00a0 I don’t know where she’s getting this stuff from.<\/span><\/em><\/div>\n

The second reason Levin\u2019s logic is self-contradictory is that Levin\u2019s attempted exit-hatch\u2014\u00a0that Reagan was simply enforcing rules in response to specific violations of trade deals\u2014\u00a0would more than justify Trump\u2019s proposed actions.<\/p>\n

Trump has clearly said that if China devalues its currency, he will impose a tariff on China equivalent to the amount by which they are devaluing their currency\u2014 essentially negating the value of the illicit practice so that they stop doing it.<\/p>\n

As Trump told the New York Times<\/em>:<\/p>\n

I would do a tax. And let me tell you what the tax should be? The tax should be 45 percent. That would be a tax that would be an equivalent to some of the kind of devaluations that they\u2019ve done.<\/u><\/strong> They cannot believe that we haven\u2019t done this yet. [Emphasis added]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Interestingly, Levin criticizes<\/span><\/u><\/a> Breitbart<\/em> for not including this quote in a Breitbart News<\/em> report<\/span><\/u><\/a> last week. However, when Levin provides<\/span><\/u><\/a> the quote to his reader, for some reason, he leaves out the one sentence (underlined above) necessary for the reader to understand that Trump\u2019s tariff is in direct response to illicit currency manipulation.<\/p>\n

RedState\u2014a blog that is certainly no friend to Trump\u2014points out that members of corporate media are promoting a false characterization of Trump\u2019s statement. RedState writes<\/span><\/u><\/a>:<\/p>\n

It seems pretty clear\u2026 that Trump is not calling for a 45% tariff specifically, he\u2019s saying that this is basically what he figures that it would take to even out the playing field in terms of China\u2019s devaluation of their currency\u2026 In other words, while Trump did utter the 45% figure, he seemed to be clearly using it as an example of how he would respond to a given value of Chinese currency devaluation. He did not claim it as an ironclad rule that should be used against China per se.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Okay so…\u00a0 Same thing.\u00a0 I don’t care what the tariff is in response to, the point is that he’s proposing ACROSS THE BOARD <\/strong>tariffs as opposed to Reagan’s\u00a0SPECIFIC<\/strong> tariffs.\u00a0 So in that respect, Levin is yet to contradict himself.\u00a0 Julia thinks that China’s devaluation of currency is analogous to a motorcycle.\u00a0 I’m just not seeing it.\u00a0 Another point that Levin makes is that ALL countries manipulate their currency, including ours.\u00a0 Now, I’ll admit: I don’t know too much about currency manipulation.\u00a0 But I know enough to know that MOST<\/strong> people don’t know much about currency manipulation.\u00a0 So to me, for Trump to use that as his argument and justification for across the board tariffs on China, is probably an exploitation of the masses’ ignorance, especially because he, and Julia, don’t address the points that Levin is bringing up.\u00a0\u00a0Speaking about currency manipulation, what about the currency manipulation that our government has been doing;\u00a0all this quantitative easing?\u00a0\u00a0I don’t know much\u00a0about it, put typically conservatives frown upon it yet Trump is silent on it.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Look, there are major major\u00a0major problems with the heavy-handed, iron-fisted, regulatory, bureaucracy that is killing American industry.\u00a0 To think that tariffs on imports is\u00a0going to somehow save us, is to completely ignore the real problems in this country:\u00a0 YUGE GOVERNMENT!<\/strong>\u00a0 So the conservative looks at it from this end, looking for a way to get the government out this.\u00a0 While the liberal looks at it from the other end, looking for a way to get the government into this, which is tariffs.\u00a0 Also, has anybody asked Trump what he’s going to do with all this revenue that essentially comes out of the consumer’s pocket?<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Reagan took a similar position in 1985 when his administration pushed the Plaza Accord, which made products from Japan more expensive by raising the value of Japan\u2019s currency.<\/p>\n

However, Reagan was dealing with a world in which America had a much different\u00a0economic\u00a0threat matrix than it does today. While\u00a0economic nationalists may find fault with Reagan for not acting strongly enough to protect enough threatened industries, the scope and reach of the threats that he faced were small in comparison to today. Reagan operated before NAFTA and before China\u2019s entrance into the WTO. Plus, for all the tensions that existed between Japan and the U.S. during Reagan\u2019s day, Japan was never a geostrategic threat to the United States\u2019 position in the world in the same way that China is today.<\/p>\n

In the specific case of China, Levin complains that Trump suggested imposing a tariff across the board rather than on selected goods: \u201cForty-five percent [tariff] on what?\u00a0 Not a single product or some products. But on all products coming from China and other unspecified tariffs aimed at Japan and Mexico,\u201d Levin writes<\/span><\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Although one hardly gets the impression that Levin would drop his criticism of Trump\u2019s proposal if Trump provided a list of the specific foreign goods he wished to subject to import duties, what Levin apparently fails to appreciate is that China\u2019s currency manipulation would affect the price of all of their exports\u2014not just some exports.<\/p>\n

In other words, the only way to halt currency manipulation would be to impose a countervailing duty on all Chinese goods, which necessarily benefit from the devaluation. Trump was specific in saying that the size of his tariff would be proportional to China\u2019s devaluation.<\/p>\n

Though the media, as RedState points out, and Trump\u2019s critics\u2014including Weinstein\u2014are perhaps willfully ignorant of this fact, Trump was explicit in saying that the 45% tariff would be a counterbalance to a 45% currency devaluation, in effect removing any incentive for China to cheat in the first place.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s tariff on currency cheating is, therefore, no more guilty of raising the price of a particular product than is NYPD raising the price of a Fossil watch when they prohibit the sale of an illegal knockoff in Times Square.<\/p>\n

Levin\u2019s logic is thus twisted into a pretzel.\u00a0He offers a muted defense of Reagan by saying that Reagan was simply applying the rules, while at the same time, advancing an economic argument that would prohibit anyone from enforcing any trade rule at any time since such action would deny Americans access to a cheaper subsidized foreign good.<\/p>\n

Rather than address the internal inconsistencies of his own logic, Levin\u2019s piece primarily responds by inundating the reader with various Ronald Reagan pro-free trade quotes.<\/p>\n

However, the thesis of a 1988 Cato analysis highlighted in Breitbart\u2019s<\/em> original report\u2014which Levin offhandedly dismisses without explanation\u2014seems to rebut nearly all of Levin\u2019s op-ed. The analysis<\/span><\/u><\/a> entitled \u201cThe Reagan Record on Trade: Rhetoric Vs. Reality\u201d argues that \u201cwords are not deeds,\u201d and an examination of Reagan\u2019s \u201crecord leads to the question: With free traders like this, who needs protectionists?\u201d<\/p>\n

Yeah so there it is.\u00a0 Yes,\u00a0imposing tariffs is protectionist in nature, but that doesn’t make Reagan a protectionist.\u00a0 \u00a0Reagan was at the core a free-market capitalist, and yes he did impose SOME<\/strong> tariffs. But it’s disingenuous to call him a protectionist because he imposed a few tariffs, none of which were across the board.\u00a0 This may be simplistic, but I do some welding from time to time.\u00a0 Does that make me a welder?\u00a0 I hate birthday parties and Christmas shopping.\u00a0 Does that make me a Jehovah’s Witness?\u00a0 That’s the kind of stupid reasoning that these people are making.\u00a0 And the only reason they’re doing this is to Trumpify Reagan for their own gain.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cAlthough he has made some free-trade statements, he has nearly always contradicted them with other statements and then acted like a protectionist,\u201d Some?\u00a0Reagan spent years running around this country giving\u00a0speeches defending conservatism, free-trade, free-market enterprise, and capitalism when he worked for GE.\u00a0 Imposing two or three specific tariffs is nowhere near being an across the board tariff Trumpeteer.\u00a0\u00a0Trump is\u00a0RUNNING<\/strong> on tariffs.\u00a0 That’s the comparison that Levin is making.\u00a0<\/span><\/em>\u00a0 wrote Cato\u2019s Sheldon Richman, as he proceeded to level the same criticism against President Reagan for raisings the cost of goods for U.S. consumers that Levin now levels against Trump: \u201cThe Reagan policy has harmed the United States in several ways\u2026 Consumers pay more for products when quotas make imports artificially scarce and when tariffs make them artificially expensive,\u201d Richman said<\/span><\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n

The \u201cfree traders\u2019\u201d frustrations over the disparity between Reagan\u2019s rhetoric as a trade purist and his actual trade record was echoed by others at Cato during that time.<\/p>\n

There’s that word purist again.\u00a0 That is straw-man poop.\u00a0 Reagan never called himself a trade purist.\u00a0 It’s his opponents that called him a purist.\u00a0 People always do that to disparage someone.\u00a0 It’s got a double effect.\u00a0 They derogatorily call you a\u00a0purist because you have some principles, then call you a hypocrite when you don’t live up to their standards as a purist.\u00a0 They hit you coming and they hit you going.\u00a0 That’s exactly what they do today.\u00a0 “Oh!\u00a0 Ted Cruz is a purist!\u00a0 We can’t put him in office!”\u00a0 And the next day they say, “Ted Cruz is a hypocrite because of blah blah blah!”\u00a0 Listen to Michael Savage and Hannity, and they use this purist bologna all the time.\u00a0 They claim that #NeverTrumpers are purists.\u00a0 No they have principles.\u00a0 There’s no such thing as purist.\u00a0 The closest to purist are probably Libertarians.\u00a0 And Cato Institute, who Julia seems to love so much,\u00a0is thought to be a libertarian institute.\u00a0 <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Julia says that “Levin\u2019s logic is thus twisted into a pretzel.”\u00a0 My goodness!\u00a0 Julia is the one with the twisted pretzel logic.\u00a0 She on one hand gives undo credence to the Cato libertarians in saying Reagan was a protectionist, but then completely ignores them in their viewpoint of protectionism in supporting the Trump tariffs.\u00a0 She only believes half of what they’re saying; and of course it’s the half that helps her discredit Levin.\u00a0 <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cDespite President Ronald Reagan\u2019s free-trade speeches, the portion of U.S. trade subject to U.S. nontariff barriers is estimated to have increased more than 50 percent since 1980,\u201d wrote<\/span><\/u><\/a> Cato\u2019s Jim Powell in 1990.<\/p>\n

Note:\u00a0 “nontariff barriers”\u00a0 You see how Julia does this?\u00a0 Most people read this real fast and get the impression that Reagan upped import tariffs 50%.\u00a0 But that’s not what it says.\u00a0 It says nontariff.\u00a0 Nontariff.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cReagan\u2019s instinctive or at least rhetorical commitment to economic freedom was once again overridden, apparently for political reasons,\u201d wrote<\/span><\/u><\/a> Cato\u2019s Daniel Klein in 1984, referring to the motorcycle tariff. \u201cPresident Reagan chose to sacrifice free trade and economic prosperity to short-term political goals. Consumers may well view the higher price of motorcycles as just another form of public financing of presidential campaigns.\u201d<\/p>\n

Once again, it’s clear we’re talking MOTORCYCLES<\/strong>, not Smoot-Hawley type tariffs.\u00a0 As to the criticism at the time of Reagan, I think his free-market, limited government record speaks for itself.\u00a0 Prices may have gone up, but so did wages, so did wealth, so did freedom, so did individualism, so did nationalism.\u00a0 I think some of our prominent radio host got it backwards.\u00a0 They think that this rise of nationalism will bring conservatism.\u00a0 Reagan’s conservatism brought nationalism.\u00a0 My question is what brings today’s nationalism?\u00a0 What is fueling today’s rise of nationalism?\u00a0 it’s not conservatism.\u00a0 It’s Trumpism.\u00a0 Trumpism is simply populism.\u00a0 If Trumpsters are bashing Levin, and Cruz, and Sasse, and good conservatives that have fought the good fight, there’s something wrong.\u00a0 <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Reagan\u2019s \u201cadministration has imposed more new restraints on trade than any administration since [President] Hoover,\u201d said<\/span><\/u><\/a> William Niskanen, a former Reagan aide who later went on to work at Cato.<\/p>\n

Richman echoed<\/span><\/u><\/a> this sentiment: \u201cRonald Reagan by his actions has become the most protectionist president since Herbert Hoover.\u201d<\/p>\n

Interestingly, this again is the same criticism Levin says about Trump. While Reagan\u2019s \u201cfree trade\u201d contemporaries accused him of subscribing to Hooverism, Levin writes<\/span><\/u><\/a> that Trump\u2019s trade position \u201cis not Reaganism but Herbert Hooverism.\u201d<\/p>\n

Levin dismisses the 1988 report by writing<\/span><\/u><\/a> simply: \u201cHahn cites a CATO Institute piece condemning the Reagan trade record.\u00a0Well, here\u2019s a link to a CATO Institute piece praising it<\/span><\/u><\/a>.\u00a0So what?\u201d<\/p>\n

I think Levin has got right perspective on Cato Institute.\u00a0 So what?\u00a0 Levin is the one saying that Cato’s claims are irrelevant.\u00a0 Julia is the one that seems to be placing all the weight on what they have to say.\u00a0 Niskanen seems to be the purist.\u00a0 It you wiki him and read a little bit about him.\u00a0 He seems to be a contentious, libertarian, free-trade purist like the kind that Julia imagines exist.\u00a0 I suppose they do exist after all.\u00a0 Well of course they’re going to criticize Reagan.\u00a0 If you read his short bio on Niskanen, you’ll see he criticizes everybody.\u00a0 <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

There’s a distinction that is not made in all these Cato comments.\u00a0 And I’m not a professional on this, but Niskanen supposedly had a real problem with Reagan’s “restraints on trade”.\u00a0 (That apostrophe is on the inside of the period on purpose)\u00a0 Well, Reagan also used quotas and other things as a restraint on trade.\u00a0 Quotas and tariffs are not the same.\u00a0 So a simple explanation would be that instead of slapping a 45% tax on Toyota imports, there would be a limit as to how many would come in.\u00a0 I would think that this would be somewhat a safer approach being that it gently affects economics natural equilibrium of supply and demand.\u00a0\u00a0 Price may come up somewhat, but it will be dictated by demand, not the heavy hand of government.\u00a0 It may not come up at all.\u00a0 Something to learn more about I guess.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

But my point is that just because one dude is complaining about Reagan’s “restraints on trade”, that doesn’t make Reagan a tariff happy protectionist.\u00a0 Tariffs are just one thing that Reagan used to affect trade, and he used it little compared to the other things he used.\u00a0 Julia even provides a list<\/a> of eight different things he did, but strangely only one of the list is a tariff.\u00a0 Like I said, Niskanen was libertarian and so is Cato Institute.\u00a0 No president will satisfy these type of libertarian ideologues on free-trade.\u00a0 <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Yet the Cato piece Levin highlights\u2014which was written in 2004 after Reagan had passed away\u2014reads like an effort to rehabilitate Reagan\u2019s trade record in the eyes of Libertarians in service of appropriating his name and popularity to promote their agenda\u2014much the same way liberals use Reagan\u2019s amnesty to suggest that Reagan would have supported Barack Obama\u2019s amnesty. Indeed, the article<\/span><\/u><\/a>, entitled \u201cReagan Embraced Free Trade and Immigration,\u201d tries to argue that Reagan would have held an entirely different view on immigration than Levin does. The article even seems to take swipes at professional Reagan conservatives like Levin, writing:<\/p>\n

Reagan\u2019s vision of an America open to commerce and peaceful, hardworking immigrants contradicts the anti-trade and anti-immigration views espoused by [those]\u2026 who claim to speak for the conservative causes Reagan largely defined\u2026 Like President George W. Bush today, Reagan had the good sense and compassion to see illegal immigrants not as criminals but as human beings striving to build better lives through honest work\u2026 Compare Reagan\u2019s hopeful, expansive, and inclusive view of America with the dour, crabbed, and exclusive view that characterizes certain conservatives who would claim his mantle. Their view of the world could not be more alien to the spirit of Ronald Reagan.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I don’t know what this lady is saying.\u00a0 Levin is not anti-trade.\u00a0 He’s free-trade.\u00a0 Trump and tariffs are anti-trade.\u00a0 Levin is not anti-immigration.\u00a0 He’s, like most Americans, anti-illegal immigration and anti-mass immigration.\u00a0 So I really don’t know what Julia is getting at.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Groups like Cato, who at once praise Reagan\u2019s free market philosophy whilst cheering mass migration, operate under the assumption that Reagan\u2019s success had nothing to do with the success of the people he governed. In other words, that Reagan\u2019s administration would have been equally successful had he been chosen president of\u00a0Bangladesh.<\/p>\n

The Cato article delineates another inconsistency in Levin\u2019s position on trade. Specifically, Levin\u2019s espoused economic theory dictating his trade policy seems at odds with his stated position on labor policy. Levin has previously claimed to oppose open borders, in part, because a large excess of low-skilled labor that is willing to work at a reduced salary unfairly undercuts the jobs and wages of American workers. Similarly, a large, uninhibited flow of low-priced imports manufactured by countries whose governments unfairly subsidize those goods, will undercut American manufacturing\u2014and, subsequently, the jobs and wages of Americans who fill those jobs.<\/p>\n

The only difference is that imports, unlike people, do not bring with them other elements such as healthcare needs, crime, different values and voting habits, welfare, education costs, and so forth. But the same economic principle applies.<\/p>\n

Okay, on the onset Julia sounds smart and I’m sure she is.\u00a0 But take a second and think about this.\u00a0 Remember, the intention of this article is not to learn more about free-trade.\u00a0 The intention is to smear Mark Levin.\u00a0 Notice she is using the same tactics as left wing liberals to this.\u00a0 She is equating illegal immigration with legal immigration in order to smear their opponents.\u00a0 She’s also mixing in that purist\/hypocrite poop.\u00a0 This is Julia’s logic:\u00a0 Since Levin is a ridiculous free-trade\u00a0PURIST<\/strong>, then in order for him to be consistent,\u00a0he must\u00a0support open-borders, illegal immigration, and murderers.\u00a0 Levin has never been for open-borders.\u00a0 So somehow in Julia’s head, or what she’s trying to put in your head is that Levin’s\u00a0position on tariffs signifies that he’s actually FOR<\/strong> Hillary and therefore un-American.\u00a0 I’m sorry, but that is just plain… I don’t know how to explain that.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

This is Rule #5\u00a0in Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals,\u00a0\u201cRidicule is man\u2019s most potent weapon.\u201d\u00a0This an attempt to ridicule Levin, to make his positions seem ridiculous.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

This is Rule #13 \u201cPick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”\u00a0 Julia spends one sentence defending and explaining tariffs and spends the rest of the article trying to disparage Levin’s credibility and trying to link him to an illegal-alien murderer or worst, Hillary!<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Levin\u2019s previously professed desire to curb visa dispensations seems directly at odds with his espoused economic theory that cheaper is better.<\/p>\n

I can’t find where Levin’s political positions are “cheaper is better”.\u00a0 I never heard him say that on radio nor have I read it or seen it on his TV show.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Lastly, in his op-ed, Levin takes a random swipe at famed Reagan advisor Pat Buchanan. The timing of Levin\u2019s jab seems peculiar given that history\u2014and this election in particular<\/span><\/u><\/a>\u2014has proven Buchanan prescient<\/span><\/u><\/a> on three of the most fundamental issues concerning American voters: migration, trade, and foreign policy. \u00a0In the case of the former, this is an issue conservatives could lose forever if Hillary Clinton is put in a position of power from which she can permanently dissolve America\u2019s borders.<\/p>\n

All this talk about trade by Julia is truly an effort to Trumpify Reagan.\u00a0 They are desperately trying to redefine Reagan in order for Trump to carry his mantle.\u00a0 I think it’s funny that the only way they can Reaganify Trump is to bring Reagan down and criticize him and redefine him.\u00a0 Reagan, conservative’s champion of free-market capitalism is now a tariff happy protectionist cowboy, just like Trump.\u00a0 Please.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

So the trade wars have begun. Mark Levin says that Reagan was for free-trade. Julia Hahn says that Reagan was actually a protectionist. Who’s right? I have to say that the latest article by Julia is very well written, very sophisticated, very well sourced out with quotes and references to back her up. And when I first read it, I got to admit I was shaken up a bit and thought, “Maybe Levin isn’t quite right about what he’s been saying about trade?” But I went outside and did some work and chewed on all this and read the article again. It took me a while, but I see now that this article, though it’s convincing, is still nothing more than manipulative Trump propaganda. With a little bit of brain power, a common man like me can see this for what it really is. So I quoted the entire article and I added my notes in an italicized red font to explain what really is going on. I know trade talk is boring and doesn’t really make ratings on the cable networks; but it is important. So if you can endure it, please read on. Here’s the entire article:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":330,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[5],"tags":[15,11,6,12,7],"class_list":["post-321","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-political","tag-nevertrump","tag-convention","tag-cruz","tag-republican","tag-trump"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thereisnewsinthetruth.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/05\/TrumpifiedReagan300.jpg?fit=300%2C293&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p7qg4l-5b","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thereisnewsinthetruth.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/321","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thereisnewsinthetruth.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thereisnewsinthetruth.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thereisnewsinthetruth.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thereisnewsinthetruth.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=321"}],"version-history":[{"count":18,"href":"https:\/\/thereisnewsinthetruth.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/321\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":341,"href":"https:\/\/thereisnewsinthetruth.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/321\/revisions\/341"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thereisnewsinthetruth.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/330"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thereisnewsinthetruth.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=321"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thereisnewsinthetruth.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=321"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thereisnewsinthetruth.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=321"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}