This point is emphasized by historian Jim Powell in his latest book, ?Wilson?s War.? The dawning of the world free-trade era was associated with unprecedented European peace. Free trade helped all political parties and all world nations. It was not zero sum. It was -- and is -- win-win.

However, when politicians and economists turned toward protectionism in the early part of the 20th century, increased hostilities, nationalism, and ultimately two world wars followed. The infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff in the U.S., and the worldwide retaliation against it, was a precursor to depression, foreign totalitarianism, and world war.

Powell makes this relationship very clear, although nativist politicians will remain blind to it. Instead, they?ll continue to harp over trade deficits and clamor for protectionism ?to create jobs.?

That?s a dangerous course. Today, if the U.S. is trying to make all of Europe an ally in the campaign to defeat terrorism by spreading freedom and democracy worldwide, what sense does it make to deepen hostilities through a growing number of trade conflicts? The same question can be applied to China.

Proliferating protectionism expands the scope of government intervention in ways that are inimical to economic growth. It also sows bad feelings among nations who mistakenly believe that trade wars in the pursuit of domestic treasures can do good.

The U.S. trade gap isn?t growing larger because of free trade. It?s swelling because some of our biggest export customers, namely Western Europe and Japan, over-tax and over-regulate their economies. Consequently, stagnant growth abroad contrasts with strong growth at home. So, while the healthy U.S. economy is exporting at an impressive 9 percent pace, we import at a much higher 17 percent pace. In this sense the U.S. trade gap is a sign of economic strength. Because of our economic superiority, foreign investments flow into the U.S. in order to reap higher capital returns. This funds the current-account deficit that the media love to discuss.

The solution to this trade imbalance is not more protectionism. Instead, global trade should be liberalized for the economic benefit of all nations. Meanwhile, our friends in Japan and Europe should undertake pro-growth tax and regulatory reforms that will liberalize their economies. This, not protectionism, will reduce global trade imbalances. It may also make for a more united front in the life-and-death struggle to win the war on terror.