Those of us who are proponents of free trade have heard Mitt Romney’s frequent jabs at China, the United States largest trading partner. While President Barack Obama hasn’t been consistent on free trade — his administration has gone after China on tires, steel, and cars — he has signed three new trade agreements into law.

Despite his reputation as a proponent of free trade, Romney has been harsh toward China in this cycle, promising to label them as a currency manipulator and impose sanctions for violating intellectual property rights. It’s hard to believe that Romney actually believes this would be good for the economy and he’s just pandering to populists, hoping to earn votes.

But over at Reason, Shikha Dalmia explains that the policies toward China pushed by Romney on the campaign trail and in debates are misguided and could hurt the American economy, rather than protect jobs:

Romney even suggested—rightly—that the power in the China-U.S. relationship was on America’s side. Hence, retaliation against China wouldn’t trigger a trade war, because that would hurt China’s trade-dependent economy far more than America’s domestic-oriented one. But just because China is in no position to retaliate in kind, does it mean that Romney’s plan to declare it a currency manipulator and impose sanctions a good one? No. Tariffs on foreign goods hurt American consumers by leaving them with higher prices and inferior goods. And there are more consumers who benefit from Chinese currency manipulation than producers hurt by it. But would a higher renminbi produce more export jobs in the United States? Not necessarily. A higher renminbi would lower the cost of China’s manufacturing inputs—capital goods, oil, raw materials. This means the final prices on Chinese finished products would not change much, nor would the competitiveness of American goods increase significantly. What’s more, plenty of American jobs are in import-dependent industries that are harmed by a weaker dollar. Our trade deficit with China allows China to reinvest its surplus dollars in U.S. plants, assets, and debt—all of which provide employment to Americans. At best, anti-China sanctions are useless. At worst, they are harmful. Many Republicans are therefore uncomfortable with Romney’s tirades. House Speaker John Boehner, Florida’s Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, and the conservative Club for Growth have all distanced themselves from Romney’s position on China, warning that anti-China sanctions would hurt growth. Romney is the most protectionist GOP presidential candidate in living memory. Odds are he’ll be more temperate in office—especially because acting on his bellicosity would require picking an immediate fight with his own party. Still, having campaigned on a protectionist message, he has neutered his ability to champion free trade if he wins. And that’s a great pity.

If Romney wants to complain about currency manipulation, he need look no futher than Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. Mary O’Grady of the Wall Street Journal recently explained that Bernanke has, through quantitative easing, been manipulating the United States’ currency.

Romney is essentially toeing the same line pushed by Donald Trump, who was at one time considering a bid for the GOP nomination. Trump claimed that China was “raping” the United States and pushed a 25% tariff on Chinese goods, which almost assurdly would start a trade war (see Smoot-Hawley). As an aside, despite Trump’s tough talk, his clothing line is made in China.

But rather than demonize China and promote protectionist policies, Romney should be defending the benefits of trade, which not only brings Americans a higher standard of living, but to our trading partners as well. By criticizing China, Romney is playing to reactionaries and economic nationalism, which thrives on economic ignorance.