withstanding that the minutes of thenmeeting are a matter of record.) In ansubsequent, poorly-attended meetingnof full professors of arts and sciences, anproposal that Gottfried’s credentials benconsidered was turned down. As onenparticipant put it, Gottfried was “ideologicallyndangerous.”nSince Paul Gottfried has enjoyedncivil debates and friendly relations withnmany Straussians, particulariy the studentsnof Harry Jaffa, his plight cannhardly be attributed to Straussians as angroup. There are rumors — and theynare just that — that Gottfried’s criticismnof neoconservatives in The Wall StreetnJournal and elsewhere may have beenna factor. If that were the case, it wouldnbe one more sign that the conservativencoalition is coming apart at the seams.nInternal politics at Catholic Universitynseem to account for some measurenof Gottfried’s difficulties. Yet the interventionnof professors outside CUA andnthe nature of the charges against himnleave no doubt that his primary crimenwas in taking seriously the notion ofnintellectual freedom. The intelligentsiancan tolerate, even welcome, so-calledn”progressive conservatives” who differnwith them only on modalities — affirmativenaction instead of quotas, forninstance. But Gottfried is an Old Rightnconservative who questions many ofnthe fundamental assumption’s of thenself-styled “progressives” — about thendesirability of sexual equality, socialndemocracy, etc. Clearly, scholarlynachievement counts for little if you arenmarketing the wrong ideas. (MK)nA TRADE SURPLUS NATIONnfor the century before the 1980’s, thenUS had been the world’s leading industrialnpower since 1900 and a netncreditor since World War I. The apparentnreversal of all of these positions innless than a decade has elicited bothnconsternation and controversy. By earlyn1989, a Washington Post/ABCnNews poll revealed that a majority ofnAmericans (54 percent) rated Japann”the strongest economic power in thenworld today,” compared to only 29npercent who thought the US still heldnthat title. To cope with these developments,npolicy analysts reach for modelsnof international economics that fit theirnprejudices. Unfortunately, many conservativesnhave picked the wrong mod­nel, opting for a “feel good” globalismnderived from liberal economic theory.nThe intellectual confusion over internationalntrade was in evidence at anconference I attended in Washingtonnsponsored by the Institute for Researchnon the Economics of Taxation. IRETnhas done a splendid job promotingn”supply-side” policies for the domesticneconomy. However, their topic, “USnForeign Tax Policy and the GlobalnEconomy,” moved into areas beyondntheir normal reach.nJames Roirdan of Mobil Corp.nopened the seminar by stating thenclassic globalist position: “Environmentalistsnhave taught us that thenworld is borderless. . . . What is truenfor the environment is also true fornbusiness.”nThe flow of trade and investment,nanother speaker argued, between thenUS and Japan was no different fromntr-“nr V^Vjn”””xnj^^^^^^^^^^^^^mnJ:_JS1L /S^&^SimK.n^M^^^m^Min^mVuv^/’^^/l^^^^^^^n^^^^1^^^nSERIESnwhat takes place between Massachusettsnand Connecticut. This may bentrue in a narrow accounting sense, butnwhat about the larger implications, thenones that really count? That the movementnof a factory from Massachusettsnto Connecticut depresses the localneconomy in the former while stimulatingnthat of the latter is beyond doubt.nThat is why state governors spend sonmuch time courting corporations. Thisnis not a national problem because onenstate’s gain offsets the other’s loss withinnthe national economy. But if thatnfactory relocates outside Americannborders, the positive and negative effectsnno longer cancel each other out.nThey occur in separate societies.nFortunately, most of the othernspeakers were well aware of the fiercenrivalry that characterizes world markets.nTheir problem was how to squarenthis with their liberal “free trade” as-n^ ^ ^ ^ ^nwy ‘Pn^Ki^-‘^’n^^wHn’^^mWj^mnmr^iii^^^^^^^^-^ffln^^^^^^^i^^gV nwjrajnOF SWSnSIN OF PO MPOUSN ESSnnn-.nnAUGUST 1989/7n