Context is everything.

If one were to read only the last sentence of most articles or op-eds--I'm certain they would sound equally confusing.

Krugman's point is well taken if one reads the para immediately preceding his last:

The point is that free trade is politically viable only if it's backed by effective job creation measures and a strong domestic social safety net. And that suggests that free traders should be more worried by the prospect that the policies of the current administration will continue than by the possibility of a Democratic replacement.

Of course, reading the entire op-ed is preferable.

We thank J. Gold for the thoughtful comments and we certainly agree it is good practice to consider a column in its entirety when making criticisms. In this case, however, an examination of Krugman's prior paragraphs doesn't help much. They just posit still more assertions and raise the ante for further justifications. For example, if he's going to argue that domestic safety nets are among prior conditions for a politically viable free trade consensus, then he needs to show the evidence for that assertion. He doesn't do so, we suspect, because it's a tough thing to do. There are at least three countries we can think of with strong safety nets that are anything but free traders-Japan, France and Germany.

But even if that point were conceded, Krugman would still have show why the Bush position on safety nets makes him one of the two "most protectionist presidents in the last 70 years." That's tough to do, also. Bush just promoted and signed the largest expansion government sponsored health care benefits in nearly 40 years. That's a major league safety net! In addition, the expansion included Medical Savings Account reform that may be the most significant development of all. It creates the means by which people can take control and responsibility for their own health care expenditures. If there is any connection between feeling financially secure and being willing to tolerate the dislocations of free trade, this Bush program is a strong positive step.

We could make similar points about Krugman's other criterion, job creation programs, but you get the idea. He doesn't make his case. He doesn't even try. And it's become a pattern! That's our point.

KTS protests too much.

Krugman writes an op-ed column; as such, he is limited to around 700-800 words. You must forgive him if he doesn't lay out a specific and comprehensive job creation plan to underscore his thesis.

The fact is this appointed administration has presided over a not insignificant net job loss. And Bush has not been at all shy about wielding a protectionist club.

KTS suggests that Bush has implemented a massive safety net with the recent MediCare overhaul. This is highly misleading on a number of fronts. First, the Medicare proposals are two years away from reality. Second, their effectiveness is debatable. Third--and most important--is they accomplish nothing for those out of work and without healthcare insurance. That's why Krugman advocated universal healthcare--to protect workers in the event of job loss.

I suspect why KTS is so shrill about this op-ed is the "heresy" of labelling two rightwing icons, Reagan and Bush Jr., as protectionist. Certainly, Bush Jr. has been highly protectionist: steel, assorted textiles, lumber, fish, household goods, consumer electronics, spring to mind as examples where this appointed administration has come to the aid of campaign donors and/or potential electoral votes.

Reagan, OTOH, gave great speeches about the virtues of free trade. But his record didn't match the rhetoric. Reagan imposed tariffs on electronics, semiconductors, steel, motorcycles, autos, textiles, etc.

Who said " We're going to scour the tax code, and so help me God we're not going to leave one incentive or one reward for any Benedict Arnold company or CEO who take American jobs and money and stick the American people with the bill?"

Can anyone spell "chilling."