Gawd-Almighty! i cannot imagine a more horrific thing for Europe to do than persue this.

Let's see, Bush gets accused of evil unilateralism, attacked (rightly) for the steel tarriffs, so he RELENTS, and kills them.

Then Europe acts exactly like Hamas would (Hey, they gave in a bit, time to pile on!!). Americans to the last citizen see Mr. Bush compromising, and his sanctimonious overseas adversaries reacting by turning up the heat.

Then, Americans note that said adversaries are choosing states to hurt, i.e., blatantly interfering in the US political process. Virutally every US nightmare button about international organizations vs US sovreignty gets pushed. One might casually mention the riduculous agricultural subsidies in the EU at the same time.

Finally, the old saw about, if you shoot at the King, you'd damn sure better kill him. Not only will this likely backfire on the Euro's big time, just what do you think Mr. Bush's (and his 55 million voters) opinion of them, the WTO, and other "multi-lateral" organizations will be in the aftermath?

Jeebus! Can they really be that self-destructive?
I have to believe this won't really happen. Surely they can't be that stupid.

Andrew;

One need only look at the state of the continent to answer your question.

It seems to me that the appropriate response would be a counter offensive on agricultural subsidies.

Andrew X,

Hit it right smack on the head! The way this issue has been covered is an outrage. From the NYT -- to be expected. But look at this week's more sensible and honest advocate of free trade -- the Economist -- and (a) the White House surrenders and (b) rescinding temporary tariffs is portarayed as a bizarre combo of lack of guts and political expediency.

None of this is about free trade, it is about sophisticates at every level to find a way to criticize.

Hard to find an issue on which the right (represented by Orrin) and the left (NYT and NPR, among others) see the world so differently.

A week or so ago, Orrin declared the on and off steel tariffs a brilliantly successful political strategy. NPR (not a place I'd look for profound thought about economics) declares it "lose-lose."

I'm all for self-government, which is why I opposed free trade in steel -- it gives the play to other countries.

The NYT, also not a place I'd look for economic sense, came out against sugar price supports on the grounds that sugar workers in Florida are not paid much. But sugar workers in Hawaii are the highest-paid agricultural workers in the world and have been for more than 50 years. So then what?

Free trade is like a seesaw. On one end is Twiggy, on the other John Goodman. That's equal, right?

Free trade is good because it's good for us as consumers. It will become bad if other nations and institutions can exploit it to change the way we are governed. Drop the tariffs unillaterally and leave the WTO.

And bad for us as producers.

Only the unproductive benefit wholly from free trade. I see no reason to coddle them.