American Politics Discussion Thread

[Zed-F]

‘Smart enough’ would have been not doing tariffs like this in the first place. Moreover, things aren’t done here; a lot of tariffs have been paused but by no means all of them. Enacting a bunch of tax cuts within the next 90 days on the theory that tariffs will bring in countervailing revenue would also be a dumb idea that’s heretofore been part of the administration’s plan, and which they could well still be pursuing.

[Mjmd]

Ya I mean not doing it in the first place would have been the smart thing, but I'm more impressed Trump even indirectly admitted he was wrong. I feel like this is the closest we've ever gotten to that. I feel like that is a level of personal growth I didn't think he was capable of. I assumed he needed to find an excuse to declare victory (even if it wasn't) before he backed off.

[Zed-F]

I feel like this sort of 'do something shocking and then walk it back if allies push back hard' is definitely something we've seen out of his playbook before.

[T-hawk]

Sure, but is that bad? That's how you get big things done - start with a big huge proposal and you can dial back from there if need be. You can call it lying or overreaching or flip-flopping, but you can also call it honing in on the best achievable outcome for what you're trying to do.

What might be bad is the insider trading allegations. Probably not Trump personally, but there's quite a bit of noise that various politicians and influencers knew what was coming and sold before the dip and bought before the rebound. That'll be messy, both determining who actually did what and what they knew and their motivations and whether it actually meets the legal definitions of wrongdoing.

[Mjmd]

But part of the effectiveness of tariffs is their long term reliability. If the goal is to use them to bring back manufacturing, then companies NEED to be able to rely on their long term implementation and predictability. Saying for days that they weren't going to back down to then almost immediately backing down doesn't send good signals to all parties involved. I mean again, it was the smart thing to do, but it doesn't give much credence going forward. Words and brief actions do still have consequences. No one is just forgetting this happened.

I also agree that it probably isn't deliberate (although it would be AN explanation for this stupidity, but until evidence I don't think it is), but I also would suspect some insider trading occurring from others. I doubt anyone gets charged during his administration even if they fall out of favor. Will just look bad and we all know that can't happen.

[Zed-F]

Sure, but is that bad?  That's how you get big things done - start with a big huge proposal and you can dial back from there if need be. 

The part that’s bad is starting with a maximalist position that doesn’t make sense, doesn’t do what you say you want it to do, isn’t clear what you actually want in the first place, is floated as a trial balloon in public before being discussed with all stakeholders privately, and which was clearly divisive within your administration before you floated it publicly.

This is not ‘getting big things done’; this is just causing chaos and then muddling through after the fact.

[Jaffa]

Sure, but is that bad?  That's how you get big things done - start with a big huge proposal and you can dial back from there if need be. 

The part that’s bad is starting with a maximalist position that doesn’t make sense, doesn’t do what you say you want it to do, isn’t clear what you actually want in the first place, is floated as a trial balloon in public before being discussed with all stakeholders privately, and which was clearly divisive within your administration before you floated it publicly.

This is not ‘getting big things done’; this is just causing chaos and then muddling through after the fact.

You forgot "also pisses off all the countries with which you formerly had good relations and encourages them to build stronger trade relationships with other powers (aka China)."

[greenline]

Sure, but is that bad?  That's how you get big things done - start with a big huge proposal and you can dial back from there if need be.  You can call it lying or overreaching or flip-flopping, but you can also call it honing in on the best achievable outcome for what you're trying to do.

Flip flopping on big moves burns political energy.

People called Trump's 2024 victory a vibe shift. What are vibes? An informal way of referring to social energy and preference cascades. People get pumped about their side winning and using power confidently. If people think that their side is going to win and get stuff done, they show up to cheerlead. If they think their side is going to do nothing and look stupid, they get bummed out and stay home rather than putting their time and energy into the cause.

People like Trump over other GOP candidates because he puts energy into saying he'll do things. He didn't do all that much in 2016, but what little he did accomplish was good for his supporters. Real wage growth and less immigration. People were happy to vote for that again rather than Mitt Romney's support of Black Lives Matter, or Rubio saying that Immigration Is Good Because [weasel words]. After winning in 2024, Trump has started doing some big things. DOGE and the mass firings were big. That's a signal to his supporters that if you keep showing up and making things happen, Trump will make things happen for you. If he wanted to govern as yet another milquetoast Republican, the time to remain as that has clearly passed.

Going big and then immediately backing out does the opposite. The tariffs were big. Maybe too big. Bitching out after putting them into effect signals weakness. A big factor in Trump's easy 2024 win was the Democrats signaling a ton of weakness in the campaign. You had Biden stubbornly refusing to admit he was going senile for months, and all the fact-checked major news outlets happily covering for this senility until it was impossible to ignore. For all these intelligent and motivated people still remaining in the party, having to reverse course several times in succession was galling. "Yes, Biden is mentally fit and a good choice for president... actually no, he isn't right for it at all, and the idiotic Xanax addicted whore who flunked out of the primaries last season is the best fit for president." People who have to go through that rollercoaster a bunch will get bummed out and then not give their full energy for a campaign, or a presidency, or a government, or anything.

Similarly, there are people in Trump's camp who had to think in their head why these tariffs might work, or might not be so bad, and justify that to friends, family, colleagues, the world. Then Trump shows he doesn't actually believe in what he's doing and pulls back. That bums people out.

[BING_XI_LAO]

Once again, all I am seeing here in response to the biggest self-inflicted financial and geopolitical wound in the last century of US history is some ideological culture war nonsense. You can’t make any cogent defense of the results of your vote, so time to deflect, huh?

Reshoring is a long process, and tariffs are a very logical component of reshoring. China has a lot of tariffs and localisation requirements, and the result has been successful. 

I don't have a strong opinion as to whether Trump's tariffs will succeed (and I hope they fail because I am a patriotic Australian and my country is occupied and infiltrated by the US). But why are you so sure they will fail? 

I am not very interested in your Russian State TV view of geopolitics as it's obviously biased (and just plain wrong) on many levels. However, there are several reasons the Trump tariffs can't work.

1. They don't have a clear and consistent objective or a policy that is clearly aimed at said objective; there are several theories as to how these tariffs might be used, but these theories work against one another, and it's clear that while there may at one point have been a plan, Trump has gone badly off-script, as he is wont to do. The tariffs are not based on any economic policy or viable objective; they are based entirely on Trunp's misunderstanding of economics, grievance, and vibes. They can't succeed because they are self-inconsistent and not targeted in any meaningful sense.

2. As said before, trade relies on trust and stability. Trump himself is famously mercurial, inconsistent, and easily manipulated. If nobody can trust that Trump's tariff policies are consistently pointed at a sensible and communicable objective, nobody can effectively plan for the future years down the road, which is what is required for businesses to adapt to them. If the tariffs aren't consistently pointed at a sensible goal and thus can't be successfully adapted to, they don't work.

3. Internally to the US, this will be fought against. Pressure on Republicans to end this nonsense will ramp up over the next weeks and months as Republican voters feel the pain. It looks increasingly likely that trade between China and the USA will break down entirely, with disastrous consequences for both nations, but China is a hugely important market for US farmers, who will suffer heavily. Most Republicans voted for Trump under the theory that his administration would improve the economy, not destroy it. While the midterms are likely to be a bloodbath in favour of the Democrats on the basis of this performance, I don't think these policies will last even that far. At some point, Congress will be forced to take back their tariff powers. Never forget that Trump's goals often don't align with the political motivations of the members of his own party -- about which Trump doesn't really care.

4. Internationally, as mentioned, the governments of historical US allies will not stand for extortion by the Trump administration; their own voters will not stand for it. If these tariffs are not swiftly removed or reduced to minimal levels in such a way as those international governments can credibly claim success to their voters, they will adopt collective action to exclude the US from the global alliance structure as an unreliable actor.

After the events of the past few days, I completely agree. Maybe as I keep reading the thread there will be some interesting apologia for Trump's tariff policy, but it looks like the US would be better off still having a completely senile half-asleep president. Edit: yeah, this was bizarre nonsense, more Trump vapourware except this time threatening global trade in general and a global recession. Wow. Trump and whichever advisors are relevant (Bessent?) are apparently being total retards. The tariffs should have been more moderate, and should have been accompanied by infrastructure spending (ie power grid and rail lines and ports) plus incentives for whichever industries are deemed fundamental and important.

I always liked Trump for his vulgar disregard for various mainstream ideas and attitudes, but he doesn't have a substantive viewpoint or understanding of things of his own. For example, he disregards the morals-based support for the Ukraine, but doesn't have a proper framing of the war to replace it, aside from the bizarre minerals deal. I suppose he views the war through a balance of power lens, but doesn't want to declare that Russia will simply win, so he is currently stuck in a situation of simultaneously opposing Iran, and Russia, and China, all at the same time. Obviously if you have three targets, and limited time and resources, you choose one to reconcile with, and another to go after first.

[darrelljs]

it looks like the US would be better off still having a completely senile half-asleep president.

Sad if true. Time will tell.

Darrell