6 ms·
It is fascinating how the positions of the two major U.S. political parties have flipped on tariffs. Democrats, who historically supported protectionist trade m
by tlogan 2y ago
It is fascinating how the positions of the two major U.S. political parties have flipped on tariffs. Democrats, who historically supported protectionist trade measures, now oppose tariffs, while Republicans—once champions of free trade—have embraced them. Yes, party platforms evolve, but this kind of sudden reversal is still remarkable.
What’s even more bizarre is the mental gymnastics on both sides. Some argue that tariffs somehow benefit CEOs and the wealthy, even though stock market reactions consistently show that tariffs hurt corporate profits. Others on the right now frame tariffs as a fundamentally “Republican” principle, despite decades of GOP support for free markets and globalization.
Here’s my prediction: many CEOs and wealthy individuals will gravitate toward the Democratic Party. Why? Because tariffs reduce profits, and Trump’s policies seem designed to benefit a narrow segment of the rich rather than the broader business class. Over the next 8 to 16 years, we may see the GOP fully reposition as the party of the working class, while Democrats become the party of the affluent elite.
Personally, I’ve always favored genuine free trade, which is why I’ve leaned Republican. But now, I’m not so sure. I used to argue with my liberal friends that tariffs are essentially a regressive tax—they raise prices for everyone, especially hurting lower-income consumers. The counterargument, of course, is that tariffs could incentivize companies to bring production back to the U.S.
But let’s be honest: that’s not happening. Tariffs raise prices, but they don’t magically bring manufacturing back home. From my conservative perspective, companies should have the flexibility to offshore production—especially if they face pressure from unions or rising domestic costs.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jagger27 2y ago> From my conservative perspective, companies should have the flexibility to offshore production This is a very (neo)liberal viewpoint. It’s economic liberalism. There’s nothing “conservative” about it at all.
- chgs 2y agoThe corn laws were interesting. They were tarrifs on food imports, supported by the land owners. > the repeal of the Corn Laws benefitted the bottom 90% of income earners in the United Kingdom economically, while causing income losses for the top 10% of income earners. Obviously it’s not hard to see why the wealthiest like tarrifs.
- Aloisius 2y agoAmerican conservatives, until recently, espoused economic liberalism. It is considered "conservative" because it has been the status quo for a rather long period, and they advocated conserving it.
- dguest 2y agoHere's a simple explanation for what is going on in the US. I'd love to know if people think this is sufficient. There are two types of taxes: - Domestic taxes are levied by congress - International tariffs are controlled by one person (the president) So if the president wants to control people via taxes, they use tariffs. By this theory it has nothing at all to do with financial policies or political parties: it's just another tool we've given the president and we shouldn't be surprised if it gets used. By the same theory, if the president had full control over domestic taxes we'd see exactly the same thing.
- readthenotes1 2y agoTariffs were supposed to be approved by the Senate (Article 1 section 8, Article 2 section 2), but Trump is using "emergency powers" With so much of American goods coming from China, it's kind of hard to see how the US could win a war with them without, for example, improved domestic production of bandages https://natlawreview.com/article/can-president-impose-tariffs-without-congressional-approval https://natlawreview.com/article/can-president-impose-tariff... https://www.globaltrademag.com/adhesive-bandage-import-in-united-states-soars-28-to-new-record-of-85m-in-march-2023/ https://www.globaltrademag.com/adhesive-bandage-import-in-un...
- dguest 2y agoVery interesting, thanks! So the "emergency" is a possible war with China? But how does that justify taxing (for example) Canada, or Mexico (or Lesotho)?
- tokai 2y agoHe declares different "emergencies". Tarifs on Canada and Mexico used a fentanyl emergency. Now he has declared the trade deficit an emergency. "Today, President Donald J. Trump declared that foreign trade and economic practices have created a national emergency" https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-declares-national-emergency-to-increase-our-competitive-edge-protect-our-sovereignty-and-strengthen-our-national-and-economic-security/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-pr...
- foobarian 2y ago> But let’s be honest: that’s not happening. Tariffs raise prices, but they don’t magically bring manufacturing back home. From my conservative perspective, companies should have the flexibility to offshore production—especially if they face pressure from unions or rising domestic costs. I mean... in theory they would if the numbers work out i.e. if tariffs offset the additional labor/regulatory costs. The problem is they are hard to trust to stick around long enough for the capex to pay off.
- ceejayoz 2y ago> Democrats, who historically supported protectionist trade measures, now oppose tariffs… Targeted tarrifs. Not blanket ones on the entire planet (including, you know, the uninhabited island full of penguins). Hell, Biden kept some of Trump's.
- megaman821 2y agoMaybe I missed it, but your not seeing a lot of Bernie/AOC push-back on these tariffs. While I am sure that hate the way Trump goes about implementing these tariffs they don't seem opposed, to even large, tariffs on principle.
- ceejayoz 2y agoYou absolutely missed it. AOC: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5108287-donald-trump-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-columbia/ https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5108287-donald-trump-alex... > “To ‘punish’ Colombia, Trump is about to make every American pay even more for coffee,” the New York Democrat said on the social platform X. “Remember: WE pay the tariffs, not Colombia,” she added. “Trump is all about making inflation WORSE for working class Americans, not better. He’s lining the pockets of himself and the billionaire class.” Bernie: https://x.com/SenSanders/status/1908221908954263821 https://x.com/SenSanders/status/1908221908954263821 > Our trade policies should benefit American workers, not just corporate CEOs. That includes targeted tariffs to stop corporations from outsourcing American jobs & factories. We do not need a blanket, arbitrary sales tax that will raise prices on products that Americans need.
- megaman821 2y agoThanks for the links. I don't think there is as much daylight between Bernie's targeted tariffs and Trump's blanket then negotiate exceptions tariffs though. I guess we will see. Or Congress could decide it wants to do its job again and stops delegating its authority to the Executive.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
- ljhsiung 2y agoIf you favor genuine free trade, how do you view the protectionist measures that Reagan put on Japanese car imports in the 80s?
- tlogan 2y agoI disagree with that measure — that was a sell out in order to get votes in Detroit. That said, it's true that a selective reading of his statements and legislative actions could be used to support almost any position. But here’s something worth considering from a broader policy perspective: Ronald Reagan cited three prominent 19th-century champions of free trade as his heroes: Richard Cobden and John Bright, founders of England’s Anti-Corn Law League, and Frédéric Bastiat, a renowned French economic writer. Reagan specifically praised Cobden and Bright for their efforts to eliminate tariffs on imported grain in the 1840s. Throughout his presidency, Reagan consistently expressed support for free trade. In his July 1981 “Statement on U.S. Trade Policy,” he pledged to reduce government-imposed barriers on international trade and investment. One of his strongest affirmations came during a January 1988 speech in Cleveland, where he framed America’s trade deficit as a sign of economic strength. On several occasions—often in response to protectionist moves by congressional Democrats—Reagan reiterated his free-trade stance. For instance, he vowed to veto the House trade bill if it included a restrictive amendment sponsored by Representative Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- vitus 2y ago> Democrats, who historically supported protectionist trade measures, now oppose tariffs Can you provide a source for this one? On the front of free trade, NAFTA comes to mind where there was some support and some oppositions within both parties. And of course there was TPP which Obama was championing (to no avail -- every major presidential candidate in 2016 opposed it). Is this a reference to the chicken tax during the LBJ era? Nixon had also placed a 10% global tariff on all dutiable imports when we got off the gold standard, so I don't see it as being obviously a single-party issue. And of course, Smoot-Hawley was a heavily partisan bill championed by the Republican side of the house. The Republican fascination with tariffs goes all the way back to at least 1861 with the Morill Tariff (and even further back if you consider their predecessors in the Whig party).
- tlogan 2y agoHonestly, I was under impression Democrats were for tariffs :-) I guess I was unnecessarily worried that Democrats love tariffs. It is the other way around now. I do remember this speech by Bernie Sanders: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzpmhBEA9Ok https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzpmhBEA9Ok
- vitus 2y agoYeah, Bernie Sanders has consistently staked out a number of protectionist / populist positions, but he is not representative of the Democratic party as a whole. In case you're wondering, the resolution in question failed with large margins in both parties (although it garnered a somewhat larger share of D votes -- 23% versus 17%). https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2005239 https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2005239 Outside of a few limited occurrences, from 1980 up to the early 2010s, both Republicans and Democrats generally supported free trade and lowering tariffs. (This may extend all the way back to 1934, but I haven't checked all the votes in Congress to see, for instance, if this sentiment extended beyond Eisenhower to the rest of his party in the 1950s.)
- dgacmu 2y agoI don't think many Democrats have been arguing for blanket tariffs for some time. It kind of seemed like there was a bipartisan consensus for the use of some combination of tariffs and stimulus to ensure there was domestic manufacturing capability for critical industries... at least until trump. Nobody in their right mind has been calling for a return to domestic t-shirt manufacturing, but there are national security and competitiveness reasons to think about semiconductors. And that's what the chips act did, and at 64-33 that's about as bipartisan as things get these days.
- Aloisius 2y ago> Yes, party platforms evolve, but this kind of sudden reversal is still remarkable. I don't think there's been a Democratic platform that's advocated increasing tariffs or trade barriers in living memory. Most have outright called for free trade, though in recent years also "fair" trade which meant trying to push for worker protection/environmental/etc laws and end foreign subsidies and barriers onto other countries to level the playing field rather than increasing trade barriers. There is a more protectionist wing of the Democratic party that has advocated for increasing trade barriers (or in some cases, ceasing trading altogether), but despite sometimes being quite loud, they've never had a majority. It was the American left that were anti-globalization, like with the protests WTO conference in 1999. Their flip has been... weird.