"Tariffs, properly used, which we will do, and being reciprocal with other nations, but it'll make our country rich," he said at this week's news conference. "Our country right now loses to everybody."

That's a significant change from free trade leading to "hope and prosperity."

Free trade is about making it easier to sell goods overseas and easier to buy foreign goods at home. That generally means making trade agreements and reducing tariffs, which are taxes that American importers pay on foreign goods. Economists broadly agree that tariffs therefore raise prices for U.S. consumers, as American businesses pass on the higher costs.

Just how different is Trump's trade rhetoric from that of past Republicans? Doug Irwin, a professor of economics at Dartmouth College, says you have to think back almost a century.

"To have a president that across the board thinks trade is bad and thinks that tariffs are really good, you have to go back to Herbert Hoover," Irwin said.

Free trade has had support from prominent Democrats as well over the years — think President Bill Clinton passing NAFTA or President Barack Obama promoting the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which ultimately failed).

Still, Irwin says, the modern Republican Party was long seen as the party of "big business" and was more firmly pro-free-trade.

"There's a stereotype that the Republicans were the party of big business," he said. "And that was certainly the case, that the Reagan administration, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush — all of them championed trying to reduce trade barriers, expand world trade in the 1980s and '90s and into the 2000s."

But importantly, he's talking about elites. Voters have had more mixed views.

Throughout the 1990s and into the early 2000s, for example, the two major parties weren't far apart on the question of whether trade creates opportunities, according to Gallup. Republicans were only somewhat more pro-trade than Democrats, and neither party was overwhelmingly pro- or anti-trade.

Still, there's good reason that there was some voter skepticism — in some manufacturing-heavy states, for example, Americans saw job losses as trade increased with China.

And that is where Trump comes in.

The elite-voter divide

There wasn't just a partisan divide on trade, says Diana Mutz, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania. There was a divide between elites and voters — one that Trump used to his advantage.

"What he did was to move the Republican Party's position to something closer to what the average American position was on trade, which was more negative than they saw the party elites being on trade," she explained.

There are nuances to this — some pre-Trump politicians, like Romney, had started to worry about China using currency manipulation to unfairly boost its exports. But Trump went much further than Romney, not only being hostile to China on trade but using China as an example to his voters of why, in his view, trade can be bad.

Mutz has studied American attitudes toward trade closely — she wrote a whole book on the subject — and her research found that Trump's shift did win him votes.

"What happened in 2016? The two big issues that people talked a lot about were trade and immigration," she said. "And what I was surprised to find in my analysis was that Trump moving the party closer [to voters] on trade did in fact garner additional votes. It did switch people's attitudes toward the Republican candidate relative to the previous presidential election."

In addition, Trump made voters think more about trade, period, than they had before. And he did it in a very Trump way: He made trade about fighting.

wont that just lead to them getting btfo in 2028? All voters really care about is how much things cost while you are in office

"Trade was emphasized by Trump as a means of dominating other countries, as a means of becoming the winner and them the losers," Mutz added.

An economics textbook would tell you that trade isn't about winners and losers — the idea is that two countries trade so they both can benefit.

Trade is complicated. A trade deal can lead to job losses, but it can also boost the economy and lower prices. And that idea — that trade can bring widespread economic benefits and that those benefits outweigh the costs — is why some old-guard Republicans disagree sharply with Trump.
Will Republicans go along?

Before he left the Senate in 2023, Pennsylvania's Pat Toomey was known as a free trader.

"There's no question Donald Trump is a protectionist. He has been for decades," Toomey said. "He's been consistent. I think he's been consistently wrong, but he has been consistent."

When Toomey left the Senate, it was seen as a blow to long-held Republican values of limited spending and free trade. Toomey himself told The Wall Street Journal that he thought Trump had changed the party.

When Toomey eventually opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership — a trade deal he had once championed — it was seen as a sign that he had caved to the pressures of the MAGA GOP. Toomey told NPR that he thought the Trans-Pacific Partnership needed better protections for American businesses.

Congressional Republicans have fallen in line behind Trump on many issues. Whether current members push back on tariffs depends in part on how far Trump goes once he's back in the White House.

Toomey, for his part, isn't convinced Republicans will go along if voters are threatened by higher prices.

"Republicans are going to be hearing from their constituents if there are these broad, significant new tariffs imposed. So I think it's premature to decide that the Republican Party has gone all protectionist," Toomey said.

For now, Trump isn't backing off his tariff threats. In just over a month, he'll get the chance to follow through.
___
>>1369963
yes

>Threatens Canada with 25% tariffs if they don't secure the northern border
>Canada relents and passes a huge bill to secure the border
>Tariffs don't end up getting implemented
Looks like a 100% win to me. As long as China and whoever else abides the dude, tariffs don't need to happen. The reason this is happening in the first place is because so many corporations have determined it's cheaper to shift manufacturing to China and think they can ship everything back over here to sell it without any taxes. Problem fuckin' solved. Let them cry as much as they want about it.

>>1369965
then why is he even talking about them? I sincerely doubt corpos will bring those jobs back, at least not in 4 years. Consumers are already used to paying more and more for stuff, especially post-covid.

>>1369968
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/canada-announces-13-billion-border-security-plan-amid-trump-tariff-threats/ar-AA1weBWT
>Canada Announces $1.3 Billion Border Security Plan Amid Trump Tariff Threats

>>1369963
>>1369965
>implying there will be elections
Fact is that voters are retarded. Trump understands this. Their favor is fickle. But to fix this country, he's going to have to burn everything to the ground and rebuild it. The rot is too deep for just a paint job. This will take time. This will be painful. Most of the independents will jump ship as soon as they stub their toes. The dems are relying on this. But Trump can postpone elections and force the American people to take their medicine. He can declare martial law in states opposed to him, for instance. As Carlson said, America has been a bad little girl and now daddy is home, and he's angry as hell, and her beating is "going to hurt her a lot more than it hurts him." Once things have stabilized and people realize how much better things are, elections may be brought back.

>>1369967
>The reason this is happening in the first place is because so many corporations have determined it's cheaper to shift manufacturing to China and think they can ship everything back over here to sell it without any taxes.
Except wasn't the whole point of hyping up tariffs was they were going to change that? Doesn't backing off defeat that half of his argument?

Also Canada already had border problems. They were going to do a new border bill already. This is just like when Trump made a "secure the border or tariffs!" deal with Mexico in term 1; they were already going to do everything he's demanding, the only thing that changed is Trump gets to call it a victory when in reality he did nothing.

>>1369972
>They were going to do a new border bill already.
I mean you can sit here and pretend you believe this bullshit, but it's not a very convincing argument.
>Except wasn't the whole point of hyping up tariffs was they were going to change that? Doesn't backing off defeat that half of his argument?
You're assuming the tariffs were the end goal; they never were. They're a tool to accomplish a different goal - punishing American manufacturing from shipping our jobs overseas and to Mexico.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-byd-pauses-mexico-factory-215426505.html
The threat of tariffs can accomplish the goal; I guess it really just depends on whether or not people believe he'll do it.

Again, the problem is all these companies believe they can still move their manufacturing plants to another country and sell their goods in the US without any consequence. As soon as they don't believe that any more, the problem solves itself. They aren't selling those cars in Mexico or China, so why are they building them there?

>>1369967
yeah that canada/us border is a giant problem. get real with yourself. trump is just barking to get a giant wall made so it can be his mount rushmore. some big awful thing that he didnt pay for with his name on it just like his plane and helicopter and highrise.

>>1369981
I guess it was enough of a problem that they decided to "randomly" spend 1.3 billion (canadian?) dollars on it.

Definitely not a win for Trump though, no matter what happens ever.

>>1369977
>punishing American manufacturing from shipping our jobs overseas and to Mexico.
And how does no tariffs do that? No tariffs, no actual threat. It's still cheaper to manufacture overseas.

>>1369977
>They aren't selling those cars in Mexico or China, so why are they building them there?
You're too focused on the big shit like cars. The tariffs affect everything from your lawn mower to the mugs in your kitchen. TORO isn't going to start making lawnmowers in america instead of china because of a tariff. If it's a 50% tariff on the lawnmower, the price of the lawnmower just went up 50%. Simple as.
And now this time when the prices keep going up, it'll be Bidens fault. And when the prices go up because of manufacturing location, it'll be the companies fault, or Chinas fault, or Mexicos fault. Zoom out and notice that Trump has never, ever, ever, ever once admitted to being wrong about any one thing in his entire life. Any problem from losing the election to a business failing to a failed marriage, to covid which was "just a cold and fake" is someone else's fault.
Be prepared for 4 years of grinding an axe while the cost of goods goes rampant and he just blabs nonstop about how none of any of it is his fault.

>>1369977
>>1369984
>>1369985
corporations never foot the bill in the end, either americans or gov gibs (americans) will pay for it

>>1369985
>Simple as.
I mean, this is complete nonsense, but nobody can stop you from being a retard.
TORO isn't going to keep making lawnmowers that nobody is buying.

>>1369968
>then why is he even talking about them?
have you seriously been in a coma since 2015? Trump talks about all kinds of things all the time, then says something different the next day. He was pushing everyone to get vaxxed in his 2020 rallies until the crowd started booing, then he backed off on it and they all cheered again.

Trump says whatever the hell he wants to at all times and his followers are stupid and loyal. This is not news.

>>1369970
Trump is senile and none of that shit is actually going to happen. If the tariffs are real it's because his Heritage Foundation handlers slipped an EO they wrote on Trump's desk and he blindly signed it.

>>1369990
>>1369994
when did /news/ turn against trump?

>>1369998
the better question is why do modern republicans want an anti-intellectual peasant slave caste

>>1369998
/news/ was never for Trump, but the /k/ rejects who sometimes post on /news/ might be.

>>1369959
Npr is a propaganda outlet

Fuck free trade
Fuck Europe
Fuck Canada
Fuck BRICS

>>1369970
I know your life is dogshit right now but that doesn’t mean the rest of us should have to suffer.

>>1370009
>us
Who?

>>1369959
>Every Bush Republican hates dRumpf
>McCain is a Democrat hero.
>Mitt Romney is a RINO
Hmm. Seems like these are unwanted leftovers and not the full meal.

>>1370044
NTA but all of us. No one should have to read your stupid larping horseshit.

Free trade. I can buy a 60' TV for $200, but I have to watch it alone in my cardboard box, as I can't afford a house or food. Aka: import prices went down, as did domestic wages, but housing and food went sky high

>>1369985
tRump is a landlord and will feel the proletariat's wrath

>>1370051
Who am I larping as?

>>1370056
He'll just blame the democrats.

>>1370061
Some Qanon faggot and in 2024 no less.