During his 2008 Presidential campaign, Barack Obama sent out mixed messages on trade.  He criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), threatening either to renegotiate the agreement or to pull the US out of it altogether, but then reportedly had one of his advisers assure the Canadians that he was only engaging in political rhetoric.  His campaign website promised that as President he would "fight for fair trade", "amend" NAFTA, and stop "unfair" government trade policies.  And, while presenting conflicting information about what direction he would steer the country in terms of trade policy, there has been one constant in Obama's rhetoric as a candidate and his actions as President:  blistering, unwavering criticism of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

In his first action on trade policy as President, Obama has decided to slap an import tariff on Chinese tires.  The President "decided to remedy the clear disruption to the U.S. tire industry", according to the official White House statement, with union officials claiming a loss of 5000 jobs in the tire industry as Chinese market share has tripled over the past five years.  The tariff, or "safeguard", starts at 35% in the first year, and is being protested by the Chinese government.

So, as it turns out, President Obama has something in common with his predecessor after all.  In 2002, President Bush acted similarly, enacting a tariff on imported steel.  Using similar language, the White House then utilized a "safeguard" to supposedly save US steelworker jobs and allow struggling steel firms to restructure; the tariffs in that case ranged from 8% to 30%, depending on the type of steel.

In both cases, the respective President decided to cast his lot with special interests — steel makers and tire manufacturers — and against the interests of individual consumers.  By protecting the business of favored tire makers, President Obama has decided that American consumers should pay more for their tires than they otherwise would absent government action, and that American tire manufacturers should have fewer incentives to cut costs or improve the quality of their tires to attract more business.  He is rewarding American tire manufacturers for providing a product that consumers apparently find inferior, and punishing consumers for not spending their money the way he thinks they should.

When government acts against consumers through tariffs, taxes, quotas, and price supports, the policies are typically justified in the name of "fair" trade and "saving jobs".  And when a textile or tire or steel plant goes out of business, it is easy to measure the impact on a specific area — the number of jobs that are "lost" in the shuffle.  What isn't as obvious, however, but no less real, are the positive impacts of less expensive goods and services.  Cheaper steel means that construction is less expensive; how many construction jobs are created when the price of steel is reduced?  Much harder to say.  How many lives are saved when people can more easily afford new tires?  Extremely difficult to calculate.  Plus, construction jobs not created or lives not lost have no special interest lobbying group making campaign contributions to Democrats and Republicans.

In face of economic downturn, President Herbert Hoover raised taxes and signed the Smoot-Hawley Trade Act, which was a massive increase in import tariffs on a variety of goods and services; the international response was to close foreign markets to American-made goods in retaliation, gravely damaging the American export market.  In choosing to interfere with the purchasing decisions of American consumers, President Obama is emulating the two American presidents for whom he has offered the most criticism:  George W. Bush and Herbert Hoover.  He's choosing the wrong role models.