Natural selection insures individuals remember failures more vividly than successes, as those who learn from mistakes survive to pass on their genes. But while failure teaches individuals, nations seem to forget and endlessly repeat failed experiments. This memory defect is especially evident with protectionism, a poisonous scourge that impoverishes every nation that tries it. 

The venal U.S. politicians´ memories of protectionism´s consistent failure and its disastrous consequences are non-existent. Indeed, the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Bill was a major factor leading to the Great Depression and World War II. But 75 years later, Congress appears ready to again erect protectionist barriers. Its latest targets: China and Dubai. 

The U.S. ran a trade deficit of over US$200 billion with China last year, which benefited American consumers. Most of us are eager to buy Chinese shirts, shoes, and appliances at low prices. But U.S. manufacturers and laborers hate the competition and use their political clout to block low-cost imports. Senators Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) visited China in March and threatened the Chinese with a 27.5% tariff on all Chinese goods unless China revalued its currency to up the price of Chinese exports. 

Attacking competitors for selling cheap goods is an ages-old tactic. In 1813, the Luddites smashed English textile looms, claiming the machines put people out of work. Yet the affordable clothing enriched English society. Today, almost everyone agrees machines are a blessing for mankind, even if machines replace workers. 

If low-cost products improve our standard of living, what difference does it make if machines or foreign workers make those low-cost products? None, of course. Imposing tariffs on imports to save jobs is as irrational as imposing tariffs on machine-made products. Both penalize consumers to benefit inefficient producers. 

Consider another case where politicians are interfering with free trade: the brouhaha over Dubai Port World´s purchase of P&O Ports North America (a British company that leases cargo terminals at six major U.S. ports). Congress overwhelmingly opposed the sale and now it appears certain it won´t happen.

In a rare spirit of near-unanimity, Congress agreed that no Arab nation, even a moderate one like Dubai that has historically supported U.S. foreign policy, should have a hand in running America´s port facilities. 

Both left and right agreed the ports were to be sold, Arabs with ties to terrorists would control them, and U.S. security was being "outsourced." In fact, none of these assertions was true.