Hillary Clinton usually contrasts her positions and Donald Trump's. So it was odd to hear her campaign accusing him of channeling her during a recent speech. But her aides have a point.

Both candidates oppose President Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which would lower trade barriers with 11 other countries. Both criticize NAFTA, which Bill Clinton signed. Both portray imports as a threat to American workers. Both promise to bring back lost U.S. manufacturing jobs. Neither admits what almost every economist believes: International commerce has been a powerful engine of U.S. prosperity and global growth, and erecting barriers to trade would be a net loser.

For that matter, Bernie Sanders could have plagiarized lines from Trump on the topic. Ditto for Ted Cruz. In 2016, defenders of free trade have been scarce.

That's not entirely surprising. In periods of economic weakness and anxiety, public attitudes toward imports always harden. In past campaigns, Patrick Buchanan, Richard Gephardt and Rick Santorum sounded protectionist alarms. But we don't recall a time when two prospective major-party nominees took such a negative stance on doing business with the rest of world.

Most Americans favor free trade and the benefits it brings. A Pew Research Center poll in March found that 51 percent think free trade deals have been good for the U.S., with only 39 percent disagreeing. So it would be good to have someone in the presidential race pointing out the folly of bullying our trade partners, tearing up NAFTA and imposing tariffs on China.

As it is, the case for trade has had to come from elsewhere. Trump claims his understanding of the issue flows from his experience in business. But he doesn't speak for all or most businesspeople. Thomas J. Donohue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, explained in the Washington Post how global trade serves the interests of American producers as well as consumers: "Exports support approximately 6 million U.S. factory jobs — roughly half of all manufacturing employment. One in three acres on U.S. farms is planted for exports." Slapping new tariffs on Chinese and Mexican imports, Donohue noted, "could cost American families $250 billion per year." That works out to some $3,100 for a family of four.

What workers need is not less trade but more. Obama's Council of Economic Advisers pointed out last year that "export-intensive industries pay workers up to 18 percent more than non-export-intensive industries."

On this issue, Clinton and Trump are paragons of hypocrisy. Clinton once supported NAFTA. And in 2012 as secretary of state she said the TPP "sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field." Trump has a kind of expertise on the subject: Products bearing his name have been made in China, Mexico, Bangladesh and Vietnam.

If free trade is such a lousy deal for American workers and the economy, how do the candidates explain the boom that occurred in the 1990s after NAFTA took effect? What was it about low inflation, rising incomes, declining poverty and 4 percent unemployment that Trump and Clinton didn't like?

Free trade creates far more winners, here and abroad, than it creates losers. Our hope is that once in office, either of these candidates would recognize as much.

FROM AN EDITORIAL IN THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE