If We Call It "Trade Enforcement" Then It Really Isn't Protectionism

I sent this letter to The New York Times today:

Senator Sherrod Brown, (D-OH), claims that “legitimate government actions, like trade enforcement, are not acts of protectionism (“Global Economic Forum to Expand Permenantly," September 25).”

Trade, as most people understand it, is a mutually beneficial exchange between a buyer and a seller. This is true no matter if the trade is between two people in the same city or between millions of buyers and sellers from different countries. So if parties to trade both expect to benefit, why does such a thing need to be enforced?

What Sen. Brown really means by “trade enforcement” is the forced prevention of mutually beneficial exchange between Americans and people from other countries. To me, that is the very essence of protectionism.

Billy Hankins

Tuscaloosa, AL