When you're a president who lost the popular vote, I suppose it's understandable that you'd pander to the states you must win in the next election. That's just what President Bush did in announcing 30% tariffs on steel imports. In 2004, he wants to win two key states he lost in 2000, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Both states produce steel.

The principle of winning the next election trumped the President's long-standing commitment to free trade. It's ironic that he pushed Congress so hard to grant him fast-track authority to expand free trade zones, then turned around and launched a protectionist strike on the U.S.' most important trading partners. Presumably, many of these are the same countries with whom he wants to negotiate broader free trade agreements.

The Administration's arguments supporting the President's decision are unimpressive. In press statements, they said the tariffs and quotas would save jobs and give the U.S. steel industry time to restructure. That probably means consolidation, just what Europe did in the 1990's. Restructuring and consolidation usually mean job losses. So, the President may not be winning all those rank and file steelworker votes after all.

In fact, many steelworkers are cynical about the President's announcement. They have already seen lay-offs because of excess capacity in the industry and fear there are more to come. Even more critical, the industry has huge pension liabilities that it may not be able to meet. That's why it has asked the Administration for another big favor, to pick up $10 billion of these "legacy costs". Now, that would be a significant taxpayer bailout.

Oregon Steel Mills, parent of Pueblo's Rocky Mountain Steel Mill, won a tariff exemption on the steel slab it imports to make its products. But, other users of imported steel, like automakers, fear that their costs will rise substantially. Already, despite its victory, Oregon Steel has announced some price increases. Ultimately, the consumer pays for protectionism, in the form of higher prices for consumer goods.

The internal dissent within the Administration reflects the political realities that drove this highly political decision. Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill, whose remarks about the drawbacks of steel tariffs to the Council on Foreign Relations were widely publicized, was one of the outspoken opponents.

The Washington Post reported that the White House debate was intense. Political advisors pushed hard for the tariffs, with the hope of winning votes in critical swing states. The economic team argued equally passionately for sticking with the President's free trade philosophy, warning that tariffs could cost jobs in steel-using industries.

Chances are the tariffs won't have enormous impact within the United States, either politically or economically. Where they have already had a major effect is on our relationships with our key allies and trading partners around the world. These countries are outraged at what they see as one more isolationist move by the U.S. The European Union's Trade Minister blasted the new policy as "a major setback for the world trading system", coming at a time when the U.S. hopes to restart the stalled world trade talks.

These trading partners have already filed a complaint against the United States with the World Trade Organization. Europe has announced quotas on steel imports as steel destined for the U.S. market has been diverted to Europe. Our unilateral action may simply end up destabilizing a major world marketplace while doing nothing to restore our domestic steel industry. It hits particularly hard at countries whose economies and markets are important to us, like China, Brazil and Japan.

Now that he's put politics in front of trade policy, how will the President react when the next troubled U.S. industry begs for relief? What if every uncompetitive industry at home and abroad asked for protection until it can "get itself on its feet"? That would certainly whack President Bush's stated goal of worldwide free trade.

The steel decision is a cynical attempt to win votes in 2004. By abandoning his oft-stated principles, the President may end up losing respect abroad and votes at home.