Trump's ego undermines his policies

 

Gordon L. Weil

Imagine a president who wanted to add to the national territory, sought to reform banking, and staged a bold fight on tariffs.  He won the presidency but without winning a popular majority.

Donald Trump?  This describes him well, though he has not yet succeeded on any of his goals.

But it isn’t Trump.  You may well have never heard of this president.  He was James K. Polk, the eleventh president.  Unlike Trump, he pledged to serve only one term, and he did.  Also, unlike Trump, he achieved all his goals. 

Most importantly, he served without displaying outsized ego or self-promotion, resulting in his historical anonymity.  But he changed the nation.  If you want to make America great again, Polk’s presidency is part of the past that Trump would restore.

Anyone who aspires today to the American presidency must have a big ego.  The task and the responsibility are so great that a person with a normal view of their limits would not have enough self-regard to carry them through a campaign much less the presidency.  But Trump’s view of himself surpasses any of his predecessors.

Trump’s ego is the hallmark of his administration.  He makes extravagant claims about his memory, his knowledge of science, his wealth, and his ability to use power effectively.  He sees his supposed success in real estate as proof of his extraordinary ability to make deals among nations.

He seeks to burnish his status by adding vast territory to the United States (Greenland, Canada, though the Panama Canal seems to have been dropped), and returning the banking system to the banks, and making the U.S. economically independent.  He would by himself turn the tide of American history.

With no embarrassment he has made clear that his political style relies rely on threats to his GOP friends and foreign allies, and depend heavily on flattery.  Foreign leaders quickly found that unbounded praise is an essential tool in inducing him to alter his policies.  They also never tire of admitting their dependence on the U.S. with the resulting need to stay on his good side.

Nowhere is this more obvious than his attempt to collect nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize from the leaders of other nations.  He may believe that a rush of high-level nominations will enhance his chances.  It looks like gaining endorsements for one’s candidacy during a political campaign. 

Trump appears to consider the praise and support he actively cultivates as a sign that others recognize his outstanding qualities and accomplishments.   His ego allows him to miss their obvious flattery, not representing their sincere beliefs, but as a necessary tool of their own foreign policies.  He is not widely regarded as the “very stable genius” that he claims to be.

Nominating him for the Peace Prize amounts to merely promising to write to the Norwegian Nobel Committee.  Nominations remain secret for 50 years.   Sinking small vessels on the high seas, threatening to use force against Venezuela and Nigeria or sending the military to repress domestic free speech will deny him the Prize, no matter what else he does.

The ultimate expression of his ego may have been slapping an added 10 percent tariff on Canadian imports, because he disliked a television ad.  Tariffs are taxes and are supposedly based on economic considerations not presidential whim.

Much of the world sees through his personal management of American policy.  The country is increasingly held responsible for having elected him twice.  Because such a choice may be possible in the future, many countries grow wary of a close, long-term relationship with the U.S. 

Trump uses the powers of his office, enhanced by the backing of the Supreme Court and the GOP Congress, to serve his ego more than the national interest.  This may reshape the U.S. and its effect can extend well into the future.  He may not achieve his goals, but he is making his mark.

And the anonymous Polk?  In the four years of his presidency, he almost doubled the size of the country through the controversial Mexican War and astute diplomacy with Great Britain.

He also created an independent national treasury, arguing the U.S. could manage its own financial affairs, not the banks.  This led eventually to the Federal Reserve, the public-private arrangement setting monetary policy that Trump would now topple.

And Polk changed national tariff policy.  He lowered tariffs so they would cover the cost of government but not overly protect domestic industry, thus reducing prices.  This policy worked for 20 years.

Trump’s excessive focus on himself – his ego gratification – gets in the way of stable and sound public policy, conservative or not.  It offends many whose support he needs.

Displaying little ego, Polk acted for what he saw as the public good.  A contrast with today.

Trump on trade: good idea, bad execution

Gordon L. Weil

President Trump got something right.  But he is handling it all wrong.  It’s about tariffs and trade.

He understood that world trade no longer obeyed the rules that grew up after World War II and that the U.S. suffered from its clinging to the past.  Single-handedly, he decided to end the old order.

After the war, a new trade system was created.  It was called the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or simply GATT, and it fostered rounds of multinational trade negotiations.

The idea was that countries could gain improved access to foreign markets and to imports they needed and wanted.  Rather than benefiting from one-on-one deals with other countries, they could derive a net gain from a package of multinational deals.

The GATT system works reasonably well.  A so-called “rules based” system, it relied on all participants having the same commitment to the process and operating through market systems.  Dominated by the U.S. and Europe, it included countries that accounted for most world trade.

As other major players appeared, GATT was replaced by the World Trade Organization.  It accepted emerging countries where the government might still control markets, but which were supposed to evolve into open market economies.

The biggest new participant was China, a supposedly emerging economy.  President Bill Clinton supported its membership in the belief that its WTO participation would move it to the market system.  But with other state-run economies, China began to distort the rules-based system. 

President Kennedy once said of trade that “a rising tide lifts all boats.”  While that might have been true of GATT, it became increasingly evident that some big boats ignored the rules of navigation.  The U.S. and Europe continued to act as if the old rules were still observed.  Trump saw they were outmoded, and the U.S. was becoming a net loser.

Because consumers favor low prices without regard to the reasons for it, the U.S. trade deficits deepened.  Not only did that transfer economic power to China and other low-wage countries, but it cost the U.S. jobs, especially in manufacturing, a loss only partially offset by the growth of the service economy.

Trump promptly stepped outside the structure of rules-based world trade and destroyed it.  A compliant Congress allowed him to set tariffs that it was supposed to control.  Whether he acted legally without congressional approval is now before the Supreme Court.

Instead of using U.S. power to leverage other countries to negotiate a new system, Trump immediately raised tariffs on virtually all other countries (except for Russia).   In one stroke, multilateral deal making in trade was replaced by America First.  Existing trade patterns were abruptly toppled.

Trump’s approach was not exactly the art of the deal.  He simply sharply raised tariffs and expected other countries to come to him with offers to accept more U.S. products and to increase their investment in the U.S.  If he liked the offers, he lowered their tariffs.  The situation became more like an auction than a negotiation.  Flattering Trump personally also helped deals.

Most countries complied.   They could get tariffs lowered, though they remained well above their pre-Trump levels, if they made offers to open their own markets and boost their investment in the U.S.  But friendly relations or even alliances are suffering.   

America has reduced both its trade deficit and its partnerships with others.  Reduced trade means prices are rising in the U.S. and elsewhere, slowing economic growth.  The rest of the world has begun developing new trade relationships to protect against arbitrary U.S. policies.   But that change will take time.

One country has refused to go along with bidding to induce Trump to lower tariffs.   Though Canada is dependent on the U.S., Prime Minister Mark Carney believes the U.S. relies on some of its key exports and must eventually negotiate a deal. 

Canadians understand their country’s dependence on the U.S. won’t disappear quickly, but it moves to diversify its trade on the way to long-term independence.  It is developing its domestic market, long oriented to the U.S., and draws closer to Europe.

Beyond trade differences, Trump has crossed a red line.  He repeatedly asserts that Canada should become the 51st state.  He ignores the direct effect of his remarks on future relations with it and as a signal for other countries to reduce their dependence on the U.S.

Last week, a new book entitled “Elbows Up” appeared in Canada.  It is anti-American. The term refers to a quasi-illegal jab given to an opposing player while battling for a hockey puck.  Launched by Carney, a former hockey goalie, it’s a motto that all Canadians understand.

The U.S.-Canada clash symbolizes the change Trump has caused. World trade will be reformed, as certainly was needed.   But, thanks to his methods, America’s leadership is beginning to wane.   

Congressional redistricting runs wild

Gordon L. Weil

Gerrymandering is running wild, threatening the popular government created by the Constitution.

With the House of Representatives almost evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, the scramble for control after the 2026 elections is collapsing into a redistricting rush designed to steer more seats to one party or the other.  Gerrymandering is nothing new, but this year there’s a major new twist.

The Republicans, believing that their majority control could be lost as demographics change, use a nationwide push to redistrict, seeking to engineer their long-term control.  Gerrymandering could weaken the influence of Democratic voters and serve as part of the GOP effort to suppress minority voting.

The Supreme Court has ruled that each district within a state must have the same population, ensuring that each voter counts equally.   This usually forces the 44 multi-district states to redraw their lines after each national census, conducted every ten years.

While some states use systems designed to produce non-partisan redistricting, in many others partisan state legislatures tailor the districts to their advantage.  That can mean stuffing as many of the minority party’s voters into as few districts as possible or splitting them to dilute the minority party’s impact everywhere.  That’s gerrymandering.

Now, the once-every-ten-years process is turning into redistricting before each congressional election.  The individual voter is a political pawn, moved to a new district by the party that, for the time being, controls the state legislature.  Elections aren’t an exercise in democracy; they are a game.   The Democrats are now playing the same GOP game.

Gerrymandering (named after a politician who first created a district resembling a salamander) can depress voter turnout.  If a voter is shifted into a district where their party’s candidate is sure to lose, why bother voting?  In gerrymandered Texas, candidates in eight of the 38 districts run unopposed, because opposition would be futile. 

When voters stay home, their absence can affect other races.  A larger turnout of discouraged Democratic voters in Wisconsin, one of the two most gerrymandered states, might have helped the U.S. Senate election of Republican Ron Johnson, who won narrowly.  GOP strategists believe lower turnout helps their candidates.

With constant redistricting, the partisan divide in the U.S. electorate is likely to become locked in.  Control of the House may come to depend on the outcome of a few elections influenced by massive outside spending. 

Before 1967, states could choose how they elected their House members.  Historically, some used statewide voting.  Hawaii, the last state with statewide voting, was forced to abandon it in 1970.  The 1967 law requires all states to use single-member districts.  

If that law were repealed, electing members of Congress statewide could eliminate or reduce gerrymandering.  Candidates might run focusing more on national policy and not merely on their ability to bring home federal dollars. As the Framers intended, they could better reflect the short-term evolution of the popular will on national issues.

This reform is not partisan and would leave the election method to each state.  Both parties could benefit.  Wisconsin, the most gerrymandered GOP state, would likely go from six Republicans and two Democrats to an even 4-4 split.  Maryland, the most gerrymandered Democratic state, would probably go from seven Democrats and one Republican to a 4-4 split.

In some states, like California (more Republican members) or Texas (more Democrats), the changes in House delegations could be substantial.  The potential offsetting advantages across the entire country could reduce the partisan implications of repealing the 1967 law.

States could elect some House members at-large and the remainder by districts.  Maine and Nebraska choose presidential electors this way.  With fewer, larger districts, gerrymandering could be reduced. 

Voters could vote for as many candidates as the number of the at-large House seats in a state, though they could “bullet vote” for as little as one candidate.  This could parallel ranked-choice voting.  Candidates might take moderate positions to broaden their appeal, reducing divisiveness.

Candidates could be listed with their party affiliations.  Voters could choose to vote for all candidates of a single party.  Wider choice could allow non-aligned candidates a better chance of election.   The top candidates equal to the number of a state’s at-large slots, regardless of their affiliation, would be the winners. 

The House election would be separate from statewide voting for president, senators, governor and other state officials.  These are distinct offices, and separate ballots could permit a state’s voters to balance their choices.

If the law were changed and even one large state successfully chose statewide House elections, its move could set an example for other states.  Or elections might stay as they are.

To conform with the Framers’ original intent, restoring this long-standing state right can happen without amending the Constitution.   Ending deepening national division makes it time to think outside the partisan box about reforms like this.

 

 

Trump shows his worry about Supreme Court tariff case

 

Gordon L. Weil

Unlike almost all other countries, Canada has refused to make concessions to President Trump that would induce him to lower tariffs.  While he has taken actions on policies not yet in effect or to match a U.S. concession, Prime Minister Mark Carney insists in negotiations.

But trade talks are making no progress.  Instead of wasting time courting Trump, Canada is working hard on finding alternate markets and on increasing domestic trade.  But it attempts to keep talks going in the hope that the U.S. will realize its dependence on its major trading partner and ally.

Then, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, whose province is deeply involved in the joint American-Canadian auto manufacturing arrangement, vented his frustration with the talks.  As a Canadian Conservative, he had liked Trump’s return to office.  But the president’s tariff policy almost immediately turned him around.

Ford launched a one-minute television ad featuring long-ago remarks against tariffs by then President Ronald Reagan.  Trump immediately blew, impulsively cancelling what seemed to be the almost mythical trade talks with Canada.  Then, he added a new 10 percent tariff.  Out of this ad and Trump’s visceral reaction came a flood of misdirection.

First, was Reagan for or against tariffs?   He was a free trader who had just raised tariffs on Japan in retaliation for its protectionism.  While making this protective move, he sought to maintain his reputation as a free trader.  The statements Ford used were not out of context with Reagan’s entire remarks, but they were out of context with the complete circumstances of the times.

Trump claimed that Reagan “loved” tariffs, which also took his remarks out of context.  The former president tried to make clear that he did not like tariffs and their effects, but sometimes increasing them was necessary.  He did not use them like Trump’s broad-brush approach.

Second, Ford’s ad opportunistically took advantage of the fleeting moment when Americans would pay much attention to Canada, thanks to the opening of the World Series between the Toronto Blue Jays and the Los Angeles Dodgers.  It was an outburst of patriotic support for his province, home of the Blue Jays, and an outlet for his anger over Trump’s auto protectionism.

Third, Ford was seeking to put pressure on Carney.  They are not natural allies.  Besides, Ford’s Ontario has demands that differ somewhat from Carney’s Canada.   Canadian provinces often find themselves at odds with federal policy.  Ford could be seeking a deal that would benefit Ontario, but possibly at the expense of other provinces.

Carney obviously did not like Ford treading on his authority over foreign and trade policy.  He got Ford to withdraw the ad, but only after the first two games, both played in Toronto.  Ford wanted to keep exploiting the inevitable explosion of Canadian nationalism at the games, but he does not speak for Canada.  Carney showed Trump that he had no responsibility for the ad.

Fourth, Trump’s instant reaction scarcely hides the reluctance of the U.S. to arrive at a negotiated deal with Canada rather than simply forcing it to make concessions.  Trump apparently believes that delay weakens Canada and improves his own position.   He ignores the deep anger north of the border about his suggestion that Canada should become the 51st American state.

Fifth, perhaps the most important aspect of the ad flare-up is that it revealed what is truly worrying Trump – the possibility of a Supreme Court ruling unravelling most of his tariff policy.  Two federal courts have already ruled that most Trump tariffs are not allowed.  The case is now before the Supreme Court.

Congress permits the president to alter tariffs in a national emergency, but his current declaration does not meet the standard set by Congress in giving the president its power to set tariffs.  His complete control over tariffs would be unconstitutional.  And, it is hardly a national emergency when tariff talks with Canada are ostensibly ended because of a critical television ad.

Trump charges that Ontario’s Ford is trying to influence the Court’s decision.  But Ford only wants a trade deal on autos.   And it’s an insult to the Court that it, like Trump, would be influenced by a Canadian television ad.

Trump’s reaction could go beyond trade policy and increase his worries.  If the Supreme Court affirms the ruling of the lower court specializing in trade matters, it would be the first serious limit it has imposed on his powers.  If it supports him, the ruling would cement its backing for his virtually absolute power.

He believes that court actions can be influenced by his political pressure.  Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, led by judges he has appointed, have favored him.  By creating an improbable pretext for Ford’s ad, he may want to be seen as a victim, worthy of more judicial deference.

America's two-tier economy

 

Gordon L. Weil

Want a new car? 

For $50,000, it’s yours.  That’s the average sticker price of the new models.  Or you can make unending monthly payments of about $1,000.  When you trade it in, you’ll take a loss, because the car’s value will be less than what you still owe.   

But wealthy people can afford a new car and pay in cash.  They have the money to spend on high-cost purchases. 

As their incomes are squeezed by rising costs, many people cannot keep up with monthly auto loan payments.  They risk losing the car and their money.  The rest of the market wants used cars, though that also drives up their prices.  Dealers entice people who can afford new cars to trade in their cars.  They both sell new cars and supply the profitable used-car market.

The result is a two-tier market.  The wealthy drive the latest models, and others drive hand-me-down cars that may include the defects caused by their previous owners.

This economic split appears elsewhere.   The residential real estate market may be sluggish nationally, because many aspiring home owners cannot afford mortgage interest rates and the increased cost of building materials.  Their tight budgets, caused by stagnating wage increases and higher retail prices, put home buying out of sight.

One contributor to increased building materials prices are the Trump-imposed tariffs on Canadian lumber, widely used in home construction.  One Maine lumber dealer reported that its lumber costs increased by 45 percent due to new tariffs.  It is looking for alternatives.

Trump seems to think that if the Fed cuts interest rates, that could help the housing market.  But the Fed sets short-term rates, while mortgages are usually long-term debt.  Besides, lowering rates cannot fully compensate for costlier construction materials.

While the residential market remains slow, the sales of homes over $1 million exist in a parallel universe.  The prices of these homes are increasing steadily, thanks to an affluent core of potential purchasers, intent on upgrading.  They can pay cash, often out of the proceeds from the sale of their previous homes, so mortgage rates do not matter.

As with autos, a two-tier market occurs.  One level is for the wealthy and the other level is for everybody else.

This happens again when it comes to airlines.  Delta and United have found they can profit more by adding business- and first-class seats and reducing the economy cabin.  Packing more people in limited space does not earn them as much as offering greater luxury, even at unusually high fares.

American Airlines and the low-cost carriers like Southwest got the message.  Ultimately there will be more high-priced airline seats with a likely reduction in economy and budget fares. The two-tier economy is being repeated.

How does this split-level economy grow?  The wealthy are gaining more wealth thanks to government policy and their investments.  Their windfall gains go back into the stock market where they add even more wealth.

The record-setting stock market may produce two myths.  The first is that a healthy stock market is a good indicator of a healthy economy.  Trump often backs this belief when the market rises, and doesn’t mention it when the market declines.

The second myth is that the market is in a bubble with unrealistically high prices, and that the bubble will burst.  Maybe, but there is an alternative explanation for both myths.

The stock market may serve significantly as the savings bank of the wealthy.  The top ten percent own about 90 percent of the value of all stocks.  Coupled with their long-term position in an historically increasing stock market, the market may reflect their influence and interests rather than the national economy.

Again, here are two tiers.  The wealthy have a powerful effect on the market and the economy, while others mostly absorb their effects.  Most people are dependent on a political and economic system that is gradually withdrawing support from them by cutting food stamps and health care to tariff increases that forfeit markets and raise costs.

In theory, the wealthy would invest in new production, creating more jobs – the “trickle down” concept.  That theory has been abandoned.  Accumulation of wealth is now deemed a desirable and sufficient economic goal. 

F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote that the rich, “They are different from you and me.”

To which Ernest Hemingway is said to have responded, “Yes, they have more money.”

The rich aren’t different.  But they enjoy an income tax system that favors them, while other people lose essential government support.  The aversion of the rich to taxes beats caring about the common good. 

The deepest split in the U.S. may not be the partisan divide between the parties, but the growing two-tier economy, steadily widening the income gap between the wealthy and everybody else. 

Supreme Court conservatives become America's legislature

 

Gordon L. Weil

The U.S. Supreme Court seeks a new record: to issue a ruling rivaling the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision that said that Blacks could not be U.S. citizens. 

That decision was a cause of the Civil War, which led to constitutional changes intended to give African Americans equality with all other Americans.  In 1965, one hundred years after the end of the Civil War, the Voting Rights Act was adopted to finally ensure equality in access to voting. 

Because some states, mostly in the former Confederate South, had adopted laws and practices keeping Blacks from voting, Congress empowered the federal government to approve state voting practices to ensure they were not discriminatory and required states to design congressional districts that would not dilute minority voting.

The Supreme Court, controlled by a conservative majority of six justices, decided that federal supervision of states to prevent discriminatory districting had run its course and should end.  Virtually instantly, some states acted to reduce the possibility of Blacks being elected.

Now, the same Court majority seems ready to decide that the anti-discrimination requirement imposed on states is also outmoded.  Ignoring the effects of its earlier decision, it is poised to hollow out what remains of the historic Voting Rights Act.  If not racist, such a decision would reveal a remarkable indifference to American history.

The media has chosen to focus on the effect on the Democratic Party, supported by most Black voters, forecasting it will lose seats in Congress.  At a time when the Democrats might gain control of the House, the Court may assure the continuation of a GOP House, the subservient backer of the powerful president the Court has created.

But the focus on elections misses the setback to the equal treatment of African Americans, leaving them once again victims of the after effects of the nation’s “original sin” – slavery.  The pending decision could be deeply divisive, just as was Dred Scott.  Of course, there will be no armed conflict, but national unity could be severely tested. 

With Congress having fallen in line behind an increasingly powerful president, the Court has become the U.S. legislature.  Six conservatives have assumed the power to amend what may be one of the most important laws ever adopted in the nation’s history.

The Supreme Court’s power is not derived solely from the Constitution, but from an understanding among the early Federalists that the Court should have the authority, in the words of the key 1803 judicial decision, to “say what the law is.”  This is judicial review, with the last word on the law held by the Court.

This power differs from the British system, where the last word on the law lies with Parliament and the courts cannot reverse its decisions.

Judicial review should be changed.  Proposals to depart from the long-used approach might be written off as impractical or unrealistic, but the Trump regime has dangerously abused the concept.  Thinking outside the box Trump is creating has become critically important.

The most obvious change, but also the most unlikely, would be to amend Article III of the Constitution to remove this power from the Court.

But there are other measures available to Congress that are less extreme and easier to achieve.  This column has explored them.  They would require only an act of Congress with the assent of the president.

The Court could be enlarged to allow the president to appoint justices creating a majority more responsive to the will of Congress and to the people.  Abraham Lincoln did it, and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s proposal to pack the Court brought “a switch in time that saved nine.”

Short of enlargement, the number of justices on the Court could be temporarily increased.  Congress now creates temporary slots on the federal appeals and district courts.   They are filled by lifetime appointees who later move into the permanent positions as they are vacated.  This could be done at the Supreme Court to allow its steady renewal.

Temporary slots are often created because the burden of the caseload has grown.  The Supreme Court handles many fewer cases than previously, so perhaps it needs some help.  The use of temporary slots would allow for a smoother evolution from a Court dominated by the appointees of one president to those selected by a successor.

Even without expanding the Court, the Constitution gives Congress control over its jurisdiction. It can limit the Court’s jurisdiction over certain issues.  The Court has accepted such legal limits.  A restriction could be extended to include congressional districting cases.

Another method to limit the Court’s power would be a hybrid of the American and British systems.  The Court could still decide on constitutionality, but could be overridden by a required supermajority procedural vote, like the Senate filibuster, or two congressional votes separated by a designated delay period. 

Any of these changes may require a strong Democratic majority controlling Congress and a favorable president.  If the Supreme Court chooses to gut the Voting Rights Act, the Democrats could make Court reform a central part of their platform. 

Mid-east peace elusive; China's move

 

Gordon L. Weil

Missing handshake

After almost any peace deal, the representatives of the two sides shake hands. 

When a conflict ends without a deal, it’s either because one side won or because it’s not peace but a truce, there’s no handshake.

In Northern Ireland, the two sides shook hands.  In the Camp David accord between Egypt and Israel, the two sides shook hands.  Even in Vietnam, Le Duc Tho and Henry Kissinger shook hands, though both regretted it when hostilities continued.

Eisenhower did not shake hands with a German general.  McArthur did not shake hands with the Japanese surrender representatives. 

At Sharm El-Sheik, while Trump basked in the aura of a yet unwon Nobel Peace Prize, Israel’s Netanyahu was absent to avoid being in the same room as Palestinian leaders.  Hamas was absent, perhaps of a split within its own ranks leaving people who know nothing other than terrorism in charge in Gaza.  No handshake.

Since the flash summit, Israel has killed Gazans because they came too close to the IDF and Hamas has refused to disarm.  Israel has slowed food supplies, because Hamas has not turned over all bodies of hostages, though they may be difficult to find.

In the final rush to free the hostages and line up Trump for an instant Nobel Prize, there was no apparent concrete action to put the next steps into motion. That was left for more negotiating though neither side has shown an inclination toward final peace. 

Trump can earn his Prize, but the U.S. must do much more.  Hamas holds on.  An international occupying force is urgently needed, including the still-reluctant Arab nations.  Israel must not limit food deliveries, and they must flow from Egypt, with the U.S. putting real pressure on Israel if necessary.

Meantime, no handshake = no peace.

Who’s worse?

Suppose a major power seeks to enrich itself at the expense of other nations.  It imposes tariffs without a basis for their rates and that probably violate the rules of the World Trade Organization.  It refuses to negotiate, but imposes conditions that will intentionally harm its trading partners.  It does not fully understand the impact of its trade policies on its own people.

Name the country.  China?  U.S.?

The correct answer is both.

The U.S. has also imposed high tariffs on key Canadian exports that have hit the economy there hard.  It wants to destroy an auto agreement with Canada that has existed for decades, since long before any free trade agreements.  Their auto industries are integrated. 

To oblige the U.S. and protect the auto deal, Canada had joined it in imposing its own matching 100 percent tariff on Chinese electric vehicles.  That move gained Canada nothing with Trump.  Canada is blocked by no real negotiating progress.   Canadian people grow increasingly angry with Trump’s talk of their country becoming the 51st state.

Along comes China.  It offers to remove the reciprocal tariffs it placed on Canadian agricultural exports in response to the EV tariff, if Canada eliminates the EV tariff.  It will buy Canadian oil at market prices when Canada gears up to make such exports.  But Canada worries that China seeks great power equivalence with the U.S., Canada’s traditional ally.

This story is a bit oversimplified, but what is Canada to do?  Which is better for Canada?  With China, it can get some relief from Trump’s trade policy and immediately increase farm exports. Trump avows he wants to dominate the U.S. and Canadian auto markets.  Would Chinese competition improve the outlook for Canada?

It will take time for this testing to end, and perhaps U.S. policy may change.  But Canada won’t support “America First,” opting instead in favor of a newly strong Canada.  Losing the Canadian connection would be a massive unintended consequence of Trump’s trade policy.

Trump versus Marconi

On December 12, 1901, Italian inventor Guglielmo Marconi transmitted a message from England to Newfoundland.  It was the first wireless connection between two continents.  It began to shrink the world.

While globalism is rejected by some people, including Trump, Marconi made it inevitable. He sent a technological signal that the earth’s seemingly great distances would come to mean little.  An increase in world commerce would become inevitable as technology quickly followed, developing countless possible links across countries and continents.

“No man is an island,” wrote the British poet John Dunne.  After Marconi, no nation is an island.

The original America First believed that the U.S. could concede Europe to Hitler, because America was protected by a vast ocean.  U-boats off New York City quickly proved that wrong.

Trump does not seek world domination, but to make the U.S. an island of self-sufficient prosperity.   This simply cannot work without a high cost to Americans.  Despite the theories of some short-sighted economists, the bill is just beginning to be paid.