Posted on 02/28/2022 5:57:13 AM PST by Kaslin
President Donald Trump took a lot of heat from the mainstream, business and free-market Republicans for implementing tariffs against China and other countries. The common criticism was that it was a populist, anti-free market move. They pointed to it as evidence that he is a populist, not a conservative (I recently addressed the differences between populists and conservatives, showing the accusation to be a red herring). The MSM jumped on it even more, declaring — as if they are the authority — that Trump was going against Republicans.
Was he? Look at history. The Founding Fathers imposed tariffs. The first significant piece of legislation was a tariff, The Tariff Act of 1789, sponsored by James Madison and signed by George Washington. It was implemented because the U.S. was amassing debt and being flooded by imports. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution provides, "Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises."
Thomas Jefferson initially opposed tariffs, but admitted in a letter to Benjamin Austin in 1816 that he was reconsidering his position on tariffs due to changing circumstances. Before becoming president, Abraham Lincoln said in 1847, “Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on earth.” High tariffs continued throughout much of U.S. history.
The conservative argument against tariffs primarily relies on defending free trade. However, when China can make products far cheaper due to horrendous working conditions for employees, that’s no longer an even playing field for free trade. Trump also implemented them on China in retaliation for its theft of U.S. intellectual property, which also gave it an unfair advantage.
Of course, Trump also imposed tariffs on goods coming from other countries, including the European Union, Canada and Mexico. Other countries aren’t as free-market as the U.S., and many subsidize their industries, so we’re still not competing on a fair playing field.
Much of the criticism of tariffs stems from those countries responding by implementing tariffs of their own. A lot of the opposition to Trump’s tariffs in Congress came from Republicans no one would characterize as very conservative, like Paul Ryan, Orrin Hatch and John Thune.
Conservative business-friendly organizations oppose them. “For every steelworker job that might be saved because of a tariff, our country will lose even more American jobs in auto plants, construction, and so many other industries,” David McIntosh, the president of the conservative advocacy group Club for Growth, said in a statement. “Tariffs will also harm the pro-growth effects of the tax cuts, stall the economy, incite a trade war, and help hand the election to the Democrats.”
What it comes down to is Trump has a different approach for dealing with difficult countries than recent presidents — he is less accommodating. It hearkens back to the Ronald Reagan era of “peace through strength.” The reason Trump began the tariffs is because of weak trade deals negotiated by previous presidents after Reagan.
It’s difficult to get a fair assessment of the effectiveness of Trump’s tariffs since so many economists lean to the left and just want to bash Trump. About 70% of economists are Democrats, and supported Hillary Clinton over Trump for president in 2016. However, the late great economist Milton Friedman, one of the foremost free-market economists who is revered by conservatives, opposed them, believing free trade will lead to international peace.
Despite this, the conservative organization Grassfire reported that 96% of its team supported Trump’s Mexico tariffs. Even an MSM poll found that almost 80% of Republicans supported Trump’s China tariffs.
Many conservatives support moving to a national sales tax and eliminating the income tax. There was a lot of support for the “Fair Tax” as it was known several years ago. Tariffs are somewhat similar to that, but place the bulk of the tax on foreigners. The appeal of tariffs is they raise money without raising taxes for citizens.
Tellingly, most of the 2018 tariffs on China have been left in place by the Biden administration. The unions love them. So the left and its comrades in the MSM have become suddenly quiet about them, unwilling to criticize their own. The Biden administration admits it’s because China is still refusing to buy more American goods.
Joe Biden just said last month that he’s not ready to remove them, and the MSM ignored it instead of breathlessly writing articles digging up members of his own party slamming him and cherry-picked polls. “I’d like to be able to be in a position where I can say they’re meeting the commitments, or more of their commitments, and be able to lift some of it,” Biden said. “But we’re not there yet.”
The reality is tariffs are far more complicated than how the MSM portrays them. People on the right can genuinely differ over them. Several Trump-endorsed congressional candidates signed a letter along with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy urging the Biden administration to immediately expand tariff exclusions on billions of dollars of Chinese goods.
Politicians on the left are all over the board on tariffs. So if you disapprove of Trump’s tariffs, it’s dishonest to bash Trump over them while giving Biden a free pass. It’s difficult to determine how well the tariffs have worked, since there is so much bias against Trump. But maybe now that Biden is championing them, watch the news change to how successful they are.
That really begs the question: Are Conservatives somehow required to support free trade?
Other countries don't support free trade. It's not a level playing field if we avoid tariffs and have to embrace "free trade" while our trading partners use the power of their government to create favorable conditions for their local industry.
My view of Conservatism is that I support tariffs and I oppose free trade, given how the rest of the world behaves.
Conservatives do support tariffs, for countries other than America.
Tariffs have been around since America was a nation, why should opposing them be considered ‘conservative’?
Its the same with knee jerk support for unlimited immigration and for big corporations. Someone somewhere along the line convinced conservatives their unquestioned support was a prerequisite.
(I)n general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.That ought to answer at least one question about supporting free trade per se. Marx was proven right at least on that score, but within a certain scope.
— Karl Marx, 1848
President Trump needed to renegotiate a lot of pi$$ poor trade agreements. His use of tariffs was a brilliant way to move the negotiating starting point away from the status quo.
Contrary to all the pearl clutching “Free Trade at any Cost” types, used in this way tariffs DID work.
no
Americans live in the world, not under rocks.
If Americans wanted tariffs we would have them on a large scale
America does in fact have tariffs. For instance, the current tariff on sheep and goats is 15.1%
Doing away with tariffs? You can’t do it. The people who have the authority to do them are ignorant about economics. They have no clue. But if they did talk about them with any foreign entity, they would say “we’re gonna impose sanctions OK?”
Then laughing starts. It’s like VP invading his neighbor. We’re not going to do anything. Our president has been saying “we’re gonna do this, ok?” to bullies his whole life. He’s demanding with weak people whom taffies do not affect. He’s a bully.
But impose tariffs?
This is a make gelieve piece.
free trade penalizes that place with the highest cost of labor. Great for just about everywhere but the US.
It’s almost impossible to be this wrong.
Tariffs are ultimately a tax on the consumer. The foreign producer may end up exporting less but they don’t pay a penny of the tariff.
Tariffs are an attempt to use taxes to implement industrial policy and they’re a very inefficient tool.
Imposing tariffs?
Need coffee
You can’t do it. The people who have the authority to do them are ignorant about economics. They have no clue. But if they did talk about them with any foreign entity, they would say “we’re gonna impose sanctions OK?”
Then laughing starts. It’s like VP invading his neighbor. We’re not going to do anything. Our president has been saying “we’re gonna do this, ok?” to bullies his whole life. He’s demanding with weak people whom taffies do not affect. He’s a bully.
But impose tariffs?
This is a make believe piece.
Actually, most countries have had significant tariffs on American-made products this whole time. A 200% import tax is surprisingly common around the world.
Politics is the art of telling the big lies. "Free trade" is an economic unicorn that, like communism, has just never been tried by the right people.
2. There is no conservative case -- or ANY rational case -- to be made for tariffs as they are applied here in the U.S. today. If a tariff is adopted, it should apply to all products and commodities imported from any given country. The tariff law for Country X should read as follows: "All products and raw materials imported from Country X will be subject to a Y% tariff." That's it. It's ludicrous to have a situation today where tariff schedules are thousands of pages long because they have exemptions, varying rates for different types of imports, special treatment given to politically-connected industries, etc.
“The conservative argument against tariffs primarily relies on defending free trade.”
This is because the people allowed to make the “conservative” argument aren’t very bright. Your advice, to apply tariffs according to behavior, is something even the dummies should accept.
Why do we allow products made cheaply by slave labor to put Americans out of work? Why do we allow products made cheaply in hazardous working conditions to compete with our products that must be made in compliance with OSHA? Is it “conservative” to tolerate these conditions for others so we can kill US jobs? Not hardly.
Then there are our expensive environmental regulations that we impose to protect “Mother Earth,” which kill our jobs because we buy from places where they pollute the globe for everyone, but can sell their products so much more cheaply.
Seems to me like all those reasons make more sense than any concept of “free trade.” Free trade is an argument fir RINO chumps.
Does Ms. Alexander really not know what a tariff is?
Tariffs help build America so I hardly see how supporting them wouldn’t be considered conservative.
Tariffs come and go. Here is a little info
on existing tariffs. November 16, 2021.
https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-total-cost-of-tariffs/
Trump isn’t against free trade - he’s against unfair trade and getting ripped off.
(1) The economic benefits of free trade among nations are as clear as the economic benefits of free trade between our American states or municipalities. Trade reduces poverty.
(2) But economics isn’t everything. Trade may need to be restricted to preserve national independence and to avoid entanglements with totalitarian regimes like China.
There is support for both (1) and (2) in the conservative tent. The trick is to avoid going too far in either direction.
There are two basic economic forces that have been at play since the dawn of human civilization:
1. People and businesses want to pay as little as possible for what they buy.
2. People and businesses want to charge as much as possible for what they sell (and in the case of most people, what they "sell" on a daily basis is their labor).
Combine those two and you have the foundation for every principle of economics.
It's easy to see why slavery has been an institution for all of human history. It's one of those rare things that helps get around the intractable limitations of both these economic forces at the same time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.