In politics, as in business, a main goal of the participants running for office is to gain the money or votes of the electorate. Thus, these elected officials must campaign with the continual aim of currying favor with their constituents in order to obtain the aforementioned objectives. Having established that premise, there is also sound economic reasoning for taking a position that promotes a proportionally high level of exports, as well as internal consumption by the citizenry, of goods and services from made within the borders of America.
A trade deficit is an excess of imports over imports. When this occurs, more money is flowing out of a country than is flowing in from the sale of goods and services. In order to reconcile the difference, a country is compelled to sell a certain amount of its assets to foreign entities. This reliance on foreign loans means that the national deficit as a percentage of GDP will rise as well. These circumstances lead to a chain of events that further leverage private and public institutions. The net effect, is a weakened overall economy that increasingly relies on foreign funds to maintain the per capita GDP/standard of living, and will have to produce currency at an even greater pace in order to keep up the sustained growth rates of the past.
Another, more emotionally compelling and popular reason is to incite patriotism and nationalistic feelings. It is assumed that the stronger one proclaims the virtues, work ethic, and productivity of the American worker, the more one will work to protect their interests when conducting commerce and economic policies. This may be a simplistic viewpoint, as politicians are apt to be influenced by corporate lobbyists donating large sums of money to campaigns, and thus the voting record of any politician may be skewed towards those donors. In any event, it is up to each public official to weigh the cost and benefits of free trade and add to it sensible regulation that protects the interests of not only large multinational corporations, but also and more urgently, the average middle-class worker and their dependents.
Cliches and slogans intended to induce feelings of patriotism are also rooted in sound economic reasoning because the more purchased of “Made in the USA” products, the more domestic manufacturing jobs were required to produce the items. The deindustrialization of America is problematic in that once jobs within an industry depart in mass, it becomes rather difficult to not only reverse the trend as other firms begin to see the cost savings in outsourcing and are forced to compete, but also jobs must be replaced with others that are comparable in skill requirements as well as salary.
In 2009, after 15 years of continued removal of trade barriers, all remaining tariffs from NAFTA were removed. As it is unlikely that the forces of globalization will cease to tug on world economies, politicians in the United States must work with business leaders to foster innovations that will spur new advances in industries that will create jobs in domestic manufacturing and have incentives to maintain their operations in the long-run in their home country.