Or so I argue in this new column for National Journal [link expires in two weeks].

The fact that the China tariffs may be legal does not refute the charge of protectionism. One of the main setbacks to liberal trade since the economic crisis began has been governments’ willingness to resort to WTO-conforming trade restrictions. For instance, a country may have tariffs that are lower than the rates they have committed themselves to at the WTO — their so-called bound tariffs. So governments often have scope to raise their tariffs for the usual bad protectionist reasons, without actually cheating…

So protectionism is sometimes legal. That does not make it good policy — still less, as the administration pretends, an effort to uphold the ideal of “free and fair trade.” Of course, the Obama White House is aware of all this. In the China tires case, it knows how safeguards are supposed to work. In reality it is making a cynical political calculation. Dressing the action up as an effort to get tough on trade cheats delights the unions — which seem to regard most imports as unfair by definition — and thrills Democrats, who can use a little protectionist meat thrown their way at the moment, to take their minds off the administration’s equivocation on health care reform and the public option. The tire tariffs have nothing to do with upholding high standards in trade policy.

But note this excellent piece by Alan Beattie. It takes a quite different line:

The conventional wisdom in Washington is that this is a straight trade-off. Placate the labour unions on trade and get them to support Mr Obama on healthcare. Whisper it quietly, and be prepared for accusations of heresy to rain down on your head, but that might be a deal worth making.

Whether or not any such exchange is possible is unclear to anyone below grandmaster level in the perpetual three-dimensional chess game of acquiring, retaining and expending political capital that goes on in Rahm Emanuel’s head. (White House officials deny a trade-off, but then they would, wouldn’t they?) Yet if that is the political calculation, and if it works – two very large ifs, to be sure – it might end up being good for Americans and good for globalisation.

Actually I partly agree with Alan. If things played out this way, it would be a very good deal. Universal health care is an enormous prize and in itself the China tyres issue is small beer. I also agree with the important insight elsewhere in the column that universal health care in the US would have done more for globalisation than Nafta. Yes, absolutely. The problem is the linkage. How plausible is this trade-off in the present case?

It’s true that the unions are unhappy with the healthcare compromise that Obama is signalling he might accept. I see the connection, and refer to it myself in my piece. Still I cannot believe that they will oppose healthcare reform in the end. It is odd, surely, to say that the unions have to be bribed to accept a much stronger economy-wide safety net (even if the strengthening falls a little short of what they want).

The main question when you are thinking about the trade-off Alan describes is whether you feed or suppress the appetite for protectionism by giving way now and then. I think you are more likely to feed it–especially if you rationalise your capitulations in ways that invite new demands. As I argue in the NJ column, Obama’s biggest mistake over the China tariffs was in the way he defended them.

Once again, he rose to the occasion. My overall feeling: “This is the Obama who won the election. What a superb politician he is. Where has he been on this issue for the past six months?”

He set out to talk to the country over the heads of the politicians in front of him. About time: it is public opinion he needs to bring round if healthcare reform is to succeed. In this, the occasion both helped and hindered–helped, because it permitted a style of oratory that he does brilliantly, and which could seem false in a more modest, informal setting; hindered, on the other hand, because the audience kept interrupting, getting between Obama and the country, imposing itself on the event with its frequent, fatuous, pantomime ovations.

I thought it striking that the ovations ceased during a long, seemingly heartfelt, and very effective peroration: they stopped, it seemed to me, because the audience started listening. (Nancy Pelosi even stopped grinning.) Obama invoked Ted Kennedy as part of a renewed appeal for bipartisanship, a theme he is reluctant to abandon, and did it so cleverly that Republicans were folded in and obliged to respond.

He said that meeting the challenge of healthcare reform was a test of the nation’s moral character–which, in my view, it is. I found his closing words genuinely affecting. My guess is that many other independents will feel the same way. (In this, an earlier moment of boorish heckling from one Republican also helped.) At last, Obama emphasised the “health security” benefits of reform for those who already have insurance: they will not lose it; their out-of-pocket expenses will be capped. This is at least as important as the benefits to the currently uninsured.

All in all, I think he made the case for reform about as well as it could be made.

But what difference is it going to make? I wrote down three questions before the speech. Did he take charge of the process? Did he explain what “the plan” actually is? Did he settle the row over the public option? He should have done all these things already. Tonight I thought he made some progress in each case, but without answering any of the questions definitively.

The speech that Barack Obama will give to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday could be the most important of his presidency. Mr Obama is fighting to revive his flagging healthcare initiative. But more is at stake than that.

If the healthcare project fails, it will be a serious blow to the president’s power. Mr Obama’s popularity with independent voters has already fallen. He faces opposition from Republicans and anger among many of his own supporters. Pollsters are talking about a big reverse at next year’s mid-term elections. On Wednesday, the success or failure of this presidency may be on the line.

The speech is a gamble, though not because Mr Obama’s rhetorical powers are in doubt. More than once during last year’s election campaign he used a big address to recover from setbacks and vault forward. But one wonders whether high-minded inspiration – Mr Obama’s speciality – will be adequate this time.

The remainder of the article can be read here. Please post comments below.