With the country teetering on the brink of a second recession, Senators Clinton and Schumer are preparing to cast their next vote this week on the question of fast track trade promotion authority for the president. Back in May, they rejected the logic of President Clinton, who once called opposition to fast track an “America last” strategy. Instead they threw in with the protectionists, claiming, without much credibility, that they were really concerned about the environment and workers rights. This week Mrs. Clinton put in an appearance at the Democratic Leader ship Council, where it would be nice to think she picked up a little wisdom from her New Democrat colleagues that she can pass along to New York’s senior senator, who skipped the event. After all, it was a handful of New Democrats — though none of them from New York — that moved fast track through the House over the weekend. But there was no sign from either of New York’s senators that they appreciate the irony of the position they’ve adopted on fast track.

Mrs. Clinton spent her appearance before the DLC trying to pin the blame for the dangers ahead on President Bush. “It’s harder to imagine a faster, more heartbreaking turnaround than the one we’ve seen,” said Mrs. Clinton Monday, referring to the economic slowdown that began at the end of her husband’s term in office. Continued Mrs. Clinton: “If all of the arrows that were pointing up are now pointing down, and those that were headed down are going back up, blame cannot and should not be placed at the feet of those who led our nation during one of the greatest periods of prosperity and progress in our nation.” We presume that Mrs. Clinton was primarily referring to the stock market’s arrow (down) and that of the federal budget deficit (up). One wonders what she thinks is going to happen to those arrows if the Senate sends a protectionist signal at this time.

That signal doesn’t have to be as blunt as the legislation named for Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley to do damage. But the direction in which things are moving is important, and the wages of protectionism should not be forgotten. First of all, the market does not like protectionism. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 after all combined with blunders in monetary policy to bring on the Great Depression. Economist Alan Reynolds demonstrated in National Review in 1979 that while Smoot-Hawley wasn’t passed until 1930, actions favoring its passage correlate quite well with declines in the stock market during 1929. This is not to mention the harm to consumers. Economist Douglas Irwin argued in a paper in 1998 in the Review of Economics and Statistics that Smoot-Hawley was responsible for at least 40% of the decline in imports after 1930. This boosted prices on consumers just as they were least able to afford it. Most importantly, the handiwork of Hawley and Smoot led to retaliatory tariffs.

Back then, retaliation came from Canada. Today the danger lurks in Europe. The clarity of the economic lessons of the past is one reason why, in the end, fast track is likely to pass before the recess. But it is not a panacea. While fast track makes it easier for the president to negotiate trade deals, the Congress still votes yea or nay on individual agreements. Right now, our credibility with our trading partners is almost zero. The administration has already caved on steel and textile imports and has provided outrageous subsidies to American farmers. If we are ever to tear down the remaining barriers to free trade, here, and in the developing world, we need to regain the high ground. With the lack of protection-demanding industries in the Empire State — textiles and steel manufacturing are hardly staples of our economy — one would think that New York’s congressional delegation would be in the lead.