The Post's focus was a WTO report global trade will expand at the slowest pace this year since the financial crisis, reflecting weak economic growth and low levels of investment in factories and infrastructure in China, Brazil and North America. The group slashed its estimates for 2016 trade growth by more than one-third, to just 1.7% and also cut its estimate for 2017 growth to a range of 1.8% to 3.1%, down from a previous estimate of 3.6%.
The Post noted that both major party presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, have staked out positions skeptical of increased trade and show strong opposition to the big Asia trade deal that President Obama hopes to pass later this year.
In an especially ominous note, the Post pointed out that while political candidates have expressed concern about particular elements of trade policy in the past "perhaps no two candidates had so strongly agreed on the ill effects of expanded trade since the 1928 campaign that led to the election of Herbert Hoover."
As a result, the Post says, economists are increasingly warning that the growing tide of protectionism could further weaken international trade, which has been an important driver of global growth and element of global security.
"There is this strong anti-globalization movement that's really dangerous," said Caroline Freund, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a former top economist for the World Bank, told the Post. "One thing we know for sure is that closing our borders is not going to support growth or living standards in the U.S."
In the debate at Hofstra University last week, the two candidates repeated their differing but strong levels of hostility to trade. Mrs. Clinton reaffirmed her opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and "emphasized the need to negotiate smart, fair trade deals." Meanwhile, Mr. Trump went farther deriding deals like NAFTA calling it "the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country."
The Post also suggested that the candidates' attitudes could lead to "misguided policies that aim to protect workers, but instead clamp down on prosperity, growth and trade."
In its news release, the WTO warned against this kind of backlash. "The dramatic slowing of trade growth is serious and should serve as a wake-up call," said Roberto Azevedo, the WTO's director-general. "We need to make sure that this does not translate into misguided policies that could make the situation much worse, not only from the perspective of trade but also for job creation and economic growth and development which are so closely linked to an open trading system."
The WTO noted that trade could pick up in the second half of 2016, but said that the outlook remained unclear because of factors like the potential fallout from Britain's decision to leave the European Union, changes in monetary policy around the world and growing anti-trade rhetoric.
Data from the International Monetary Fund reveals a similar slowdown in trade. In a speech in Toronto this month, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde urged countries to do more to help workers left behind by globalization but not to give up on the principles of free trade. History clearly tells us that closing borders or increasing protectionism is not the way to go," Lagarde said. "We need to make globalization work for all."
Well, there is not much that is really new about this recent push-back on trade. Trade skeptics have scapegoated trade for some time, suggesting in many cases that trade agreements have cost the United States dearly in jobs of all kinds, especially manufacturing—charges that many economists dispute hotly.
This year's surge in political opposition to trade seems based entirely on the intensely political environment, although the shift in the Republican Party away from its traditional trade "plank" has been something of a shock that has rattled several candidates.
Some observers believe the current anti-trade pressure is transitory, and that it will fade once the political temperature returns closer to normal—whatever that means. Still, the current isolationism is especially dangerous for agriculture since its only growth markets now are overseas. For most producers, the 1928 experience is not likely attractive or one that should be repeated, Washington Insider believes.