More than a century ago, an old sage remarked that "Free trade, one of the greatest blessings that any nation's leaders can bestow on its people, is in nearly every country unpopular." This fascinating paradox plays itself out each and every year in our politics, as the angry, populist voices of protectionism work their will inside both our political parties.

Inside the Republican Party, over the last 15 years or so, there arose what can be called the Buchananite wing, inspired by economic Know-Nothings such as Patrick J. himself, who on the great economic issues of the day long ago ran completely off the rails. Buchanan's disaffection with the free-trading party of Ronald Reagan and the George Bushes finally resulted in his comic-opera third-party effort and his 1 percent of the vote.

It is no accident that on trade issues Buchanan, of the incredibly shrinking following, has so much in common with the great protectionist voices inside the Democratic Party, whose leader is Richard Gephardt, House Minority Leader. Here's where it gets interesting. The Democratic Party of my grandfathers -- Harry Truman Democrats, both -- was an unabashedly internationalist party. Truman presided over the post-war reconstruction of a liberal regime of free trade. Again, it is no accident that this regime of expanding international trade coincided with the post-war economic boom and rising living standards throughout the western world, not to mention 56 years of relative peace. No small achievement.

In an historic indictment of my own Republican Party, which too often was protectionist through the first two-thirds of the 20th century, it is no accident that Republicans weren't trusted by the American people with power when in thrall to these protectionist attitudes. It was only with the advent of an internationally renowned war hero and committed internationalist -- Dwight Eisenhower -- that the GOP was able to pick the 1932-52 Democratic lock on the White House. And even then it was another three decades before the dominant New Deal Democratic coalition began to break apart -- or, to state the matter differently, before the American people began seriously to consider trusting the Republican Party with the power wielded by congressional majorities.

Inside today's House Democratic caucus of Richard Gephardt, the internationalists, the free traders, have been utterly and completely routed. In thrall to labor bosses -- asking, "How high?" when Big Labor says, "Jump!" -- House Democrats vote overwhelmingly against the sort of trade-expanding measures that allowed the party of Truman to lead us from success to historic success.

Michael "Almanac of American Politics" Barone is the political analyst with the encyclopedic mind. Speaking of trade-expanding measures such as trade-promotion authority (formerly "fast-track") and permanent normal trade relations with China, both supported by the Clinton administration, Barone writes: "Support [among House Democrats] for these free-trade measures has almost entirely disappeared. ... In September 1998, only 29 House Democrats voted for fast track. In May 2000, 73 House Democrats voted for PNTR for China. In December 2001, only 21 House Democrats voted for trade promotion authority." This is true, Barone notes, even in "export-dependent California," where 30 of 32 Democrats voted no, "as did five of six House Democrats from even more export-dependent Washington State.

"House Democrats," Barone concludes, "may be pleasing the AFL-CIO. But it's not clear they have embraced a stand that will enable them to win majorities in either 2002 or 2004."

Peter Kinder is assistant to the chairman of Rust Communications and president pro tem of the Missouri Senate.