Among free-trading politicians, one of my favorites is Grover Cleveland.  We don't hear too much about Cleveland anymore.

[A] prominent concern is the growing evidence of anti-globalization sentiment and protectionist initiatives, which, if implemented, would significantly threaten the flexibility and resilience of many economies.  This situation is especially troubling for the United States, where openness and flexibility have allowed us to absorb a succession of large shocks in recent years with only  minimal economic disruption...Going forward, policymakers will need to be vigilant to preserve this flexibility, which has contributed so constructively to our economic performance in recent years.

The globalization route is by far the superior route, because protection may appear to be helpful in the short run, but over the long run, you cannot protect industries or jobs which are obsolescent.

Anything [protectionist] that we do with respect to world globalization, at the end of the day, redounds to our disadvantage.

A policy to dismantle the global trading system in a misguided effort to protect jobs from competition would redound to the eventual detriment of all U.S. job seekers, as well as of millions of American consumers.  Policy should aim to bolster the well-being of job losers through retraining and unemployment insurance, not to stave off job loss through counterproductive efforts to impede the process of income-enhancing international trade and globalization.

The broad tariff on Chinese goods...should it be implemented, would significantly lower US imports from China but would comparably rise US imports from other low-cost sources of supply...Few, if any, American jobs would be protected.

Any significant elevation of tariffs that substantially reduces our overall imports, by keeping out competitively priced goods, would materially lower our standard of living.  A return to protectionism would threaten the comtinuation of the extraordinary growth in living standards worldwide, but especially in the United States.

It is in our interest and that of the global economy that China continue to progress toward becoming a more market-based, productive, and dynamic economy in which individual initiative, not government decisionmaking, is the fundamental strength behind economic activity.  For our part, it is essential that we not put that outcome, or our future, at risk with a step back into protectionism.

Just as our economy would be a lot poorer if we had protected horses and buggies by outlawing automobiles, so it will be poorer if we protect specific industries that cannot compete with cheaper foreign products.

Protectionism, some signs of which have emerged in recent years, could significantly erode global flexibility and, hence, undermine the global adjustment process.

Whether trade or technology is the major force, the message is the same. The world has become a much more challenging place for workers with lower skills and workers whose skills are largely specific to their job or industry. The weight of empirical evidence strongly suggests that erecting barriers to trade would ultimately prove a counterproductive response to this phenomenon.

There is a fundamental congruence between the effects of trade and technology on labor market outcomes. Both can displace workers and force them to make the transition to other sectors. But both ultimately elevate standards of living. Few seriously propose impeding technological progress for the sake of jobs. We should be equally hesitant to impede trade.

Understanding the causes and consequences of economic change are vital to creating a broadly accepted belief in the benefits of technological innovation, unrestricted trade, and the other drivers of economic progress.

The greatest current threat to that flexibility is protectionism, a danger that has become increasingly visible on today's landscape. Over the years, protected interests have often endeavored to stop in its tracks the process of unsettling economic change. Pitted against the powerful forces of market competition, virtually all such efforts have failed. The costs of any new protectionist initiatives, in the context of wide current account imbalances, could significantly erode the flexibility of the global economy. Consequently, creeping protectionism must be thwarted and reversed.