Politics: Protectionism = Racism?

Yesterday I blogged (actually I didn't... but I sure thought I did... maybe the post didn't get published somehow) Slate's endorsements for the presidency. One such endorsement by economist Stephen Landsburg for Bush/against John Edwards has raised some eyebrows:

If George Bush had chosen the racist David Duke as a running mate, I'd have voted against him, almost without regard to any other issue. Instead, John Kerry chose the xenophobe John Edwards as a running mate. I will therefore vote against John Kerry.

Duke thinks it's imperative to protect white jobs from black competition. Edwards thinks it's imperative to protect American jobs from foreign competition. There's not a dime's worth of moral difference there. While Duke would discriminate on the arbitrary basis of skin color, Edwards would discriminate on the arbitrary basis of birthplace. Either way, bigotry is bigotry, and appeals to base instincts should always be repudiated.

Landsburg has a point. Except that it's an absurdly weak one. By this same logic, wouldn't it be simply racist to have a war on terror, since we're bombing people based on where they were born? Wouldn't it be racist and evilly protectionist to assume that we can defend ourselves as a 'country' of people who were born here or emigrated here? Is it racist that I live in Michigan and not Iraq, and I'm not getting bombed? By his logic, seemingly yes. I should be getting bombed too.

There are plenty of great arguments for outsourcing of jobs as a positive thing for human rights. I don't buy all the arguments, but they're logical and if I someday agreed with them, I wouldn't be amazingly surprised. But comparing Edwards' populism w/ Duke's activities w/ the KKK? That's absurd, hyperbolic, and really pretty f---ing stupid.