well to consider how U.S.-Japanesenrelations would change if Tokyo evernagain translated the Japan First policynit pursues in the economic realm intonthe field of foreign policy and militarynstrategy. And Tokyo would likewise benwise to contemplate how relations will benaltered when a regime truly representativenof American interests does finallynrecapture the White House.nA second recent factor that shouldncause a reappraisal of Ishihara’s work is thendissolution of the Soviet Union, and hownthis will affect what he—in the mostncontroversial portion of his book—callednJapan’s ability to play the “technologyncard.” He reminds his American readersnthat Japan is not only now strong enoughntechnologically and financially to takenits place as a world military power, butnthat America’s entire nuclear arsenal nowndepends on Japanese microchips.nA deal with the Soviet Union overnsemiconductors cannot be completelynruled out. As I have noted,nmicrochips determine the accuracynof weapons systems and are thenkey to military power. U.S. strategistsncount on Japan’s ability tonmass produce quality chips. Yetnsome Japanese businessmen believenthat if Moscow returns thenNorthern Territories, we shouldnterminate the security treaty andnbecome neutral. They hope Japannwould then receive exclusivenrights to develop Siberia.nIshihara, in fact, boldly calls the nextncentury the Age of the Pacific, and doesnnot rule out a new kind of Greater EastnAsia Co-Prosperity Sphere governed bynTokyo and extending as far as the economicallynneedy countries of Eastern Europe.nThough he admits that “playing thenleading man” in world affairs has latelynbeen “out of character” for Japan, henreminds his countrymen that “stage frightnwill keep us in the wings forever.” Afternall, he concludes—and Washington takenheed—^Japan’s “long history and rich culturenhave prepared us for the limelight.”nAt another point in Rising Sun, SenatornJohn Morton lambastes freentraders who contend that it does not matternwhere companies are located or wherenproducts are made, whether America isna producer of potato chips or computernchips, and who see national economies asn”old fashioned and out of date. To thesen30/CHRONICLESnpeople, I say—Japan doesn’t think so. Germanyndoesn’t think so. The most successfulncountries in the world today maintainnstrong national policies. . . . Theynnourish their industries, protect themnagainst unfair competition from abroad.n. . . But if we continue as we are,nmouthing the ancient platitudes of a freenmarket economy, disaster awaits us.” SenatornMorton, of course, is a fictionalncharacter, but his ideas are alive and wellnin the latest book by the EducationalnFoundation of the U.S. Business andnIndustrial Council.nAmerica Asleep is destined to becomenthe economic manifesto of the AmericanFirst movement, and a more thorough discussionnof free trade and protectionismnand of their historical antecedents innAmerican politics is nowhere to be found.nThe book is a series of ten essays by leftists,nrightists, journalists, and economists,nand it is edited by USBIC President JohnnCregan and has a foreword by PatnBuchanan. The essays are factual andnpolemically powerful and will doubtlessnleave all readers—friend and foe alike—nconvinced of the new nationalists’ commitmentnand resolve. It is indeed, as PatnBuchanan concedes in his foreword, “theninternational hour of President Bush. Butnhe is leaning against a nationalist windnthat will soon reach gale force.”nEconomist William Hawkins has an informativenessay on the historical roots ofnfree-trade ideology. He convincingly arguesntwo points: first, that nationsnthroughout history that have relied exclusivelynon trade and not on the strengthnof their own productive capabilities builtntheir national castles on volatile sand—nsuch as 17th-century Spain that fell tonthe Dutch, and the 18th-century Dutchnwho fell prey to the mercantilist policiesnof England; and secondly, that free-tradenideology evolved from classical liberalismnof the 19th century that separatedneconomics from politics, power fromnwealth, and viewed not national interestsnbut only “citizens of the world.” He arguesnthat this historical perspective isnimportant because, as historian CharlesnWilson has noted, the current tendencynoverseas is “to revert to conditions whichnin some ways resemble those of thenseventeenth century rather than thosenof the nineteenth.”nThis refusal to acknowledge the openlynmercantilist policies of our trading partnersnabroad is what John Cregan innhis introductory essay terms “ostrich economics”—“annexcuse to keep our col­nnnlective heads buried in the comfortingnsands of theory.” Longtime RepublicannParty organizer Helen Delich Bentleynechoes Mr. Cregan and shows in her essaynhow such theory is tied to the “GospelnAccording to [Adam] Smith.” FormernInternational Trade Commission membernAlfred Eckes complements Mr.nHawkins’ analysis of free trade with an essaynon “Reviving the Old Paradigm,”ndelineating the historical roots andnchampions of American protectionismnfrom Henry Clay and his “AmericannSystem” to Abraham Lincoln, TheodorenRoosevelt, and, ironically enough. PresidentnBush’s own father, ConnecticutnSenator Prescott Bush.nChronicles contributing editor andnWashington Times syndicated columnistnSamuel Francis traces the ways innwhich free-trade dogma fits into the largerncultural picture of globalism, transnationalism,nand open-border ideology thatnthreaten American sovereignty and nationalnsecurity. The irony, he writes, is thatn”at the very moment when the SovietnUnion … is in a condition of collapse, thenUnited States itself is encountering a profoundnchallenge to its very existence asna sovereign and independent nationstate.n…” This threat to Americannsovereignty and national security is alsontaken up by Kevin Kearns, a fellow at thenEconomic Strategy Institute and a formerndirector of the State Department’s Officenof Defense Trade Policy, and by EdwardnWalsh, senior editor of Sea Power and anformer research director for the USBIC.nMr. Kearns “discusses the “un-holy alliance”nof neoclassical economists, freetradenideologues, and lobbyists for foreignninterests that thwarts any attempt to checknthe further deterioration of America’snhigh-tech industrial base, while Mr.Walshnhighlights what he calls our “technologyndrain,” our diminishing share of thenworld market in such crucial areas asnrobotics, microlithography, and electronicnsemiconductors (which the DefensenDepartment has classified as essentialnto 13 of its 20 most critical technologies).nBusinessman Boone Pickens, as thenlargest shareholder in Koito, a member ofnToyota’s keiretsu family, provides an enlighteningnfirsthand account of Japanesencartels. These economic megapyramidsnknown as keiretsus are illegal in the UnitednStates as they violate our antitrustnlaws. But as a character in Rising Sun describesnthem, to get a feel for what keiretsusnare like “imagine an association ofnIBM and Citibank and Ford and Exxon,n