Trump proves tariffs are anti-prosperity

Our economy is in shambles, and the tariffs are making things worse.

On Wednesday, President Trump reduced American tariffs on India while claiming the world’s second-most populous country had agreed to stop buying Russian oil in return. Russia replied that India made no such promise.

Just as importantly, America’s longtime economic allies like Japan, South Korea and the European Union are striking new deals with each other rather than deal with the instability and humiliation of Trump’s constant bullying.

It reminds me of what I wrote for the Progressive Policy Institute last year:

The silver lining in this dark cloud is the perfect opportunity Democrats now have to reclaim their historic leadership and optimistic messages by condemning Trump’s protectionism. As Roosevelt demonstrated in the 1930s, Democrats can build a durable political coalition based on the prosperity and international stability facilitated through trade liberalization. As Kennedy showed in the 1960s, economic integration with neighbors and allies can remain a vital and successful policy even when the world isn’t bogged down in a literal war and depression. As Clinton proved in the 1990s, a Democrat can win his party’s nomination despite the opposition of protectionists within their own ranks and indeed by leaning into the party’s low-tariff, pro-exporter, pro-consumer heritage.

What is unfolding now is not simply a messy trade dispute or another episode of Trumpian bluster. It is a slow-motion erosion of American credibility, one tariff threat at a time. When U.S. policy becomes indistinguishable from extortion and improvisation, allies do what rational actors always do: they hedge, they diversify and they cut deals that bypass Washington altogether. The result is not “America First,” but America isolated, watching from the sidelines as others construct the very trade architecture we once dominated.

Trump’s defenders insist that chaos is a feature rather than a bug, that unpredictability keeps rivals off balance. Yet the evidence points in the opposite direction. China, Russia and even longtime U.S. partners have learned how to wait out, deflect or ignore Trump’s demands. The costs of his approach, meanwhile, are borne by American consumers, exporters and workers who face higher prices, retaliatory tariffs and shrinking access to foreign markets. Bullying does not create leverage when the bully depends on the cooperation of those he mistreats.

This is why the moment is so ripe for Democrats to stop triangulating and start leading. Trade liberalization is not a concession to corporations or a relic of a bygone era; it is a tool for shared prosperity and geopolitical stability when paired with strong labor protections, environmental standards and domestic investment. The party that once understood this does not need to invent a new ideology, only to recover the confidence to defend an old one.

Trump has made the argument easier by exposing the emptiness of economic nationalism as governing philosophy. In its place, Democrats can articulate a vision of trade that lowers costs for families, expands exports for American producers and reinforces alliances rather than sabotaging them. At a time when authoritarian powers are eager to fill any vacuum the United States leaves behind, choosing cooperation over coercion is not naïveté. It is realism. And it is a choice Democrats should be eager to make.

---

Back Seat Socialism

Back Seat Socialism is a column by Matthew Rozsa, who has been a professional journalist for more than 13 years. Currently, he is writing a book for Beacon Press, “Neurosocialism,” which argues that autistic people like the author struggle under capitalism, and explains how neurosocialism - the distinct anticapitalist perspective one develops by living as a neurodiverse individual - can be an important organizing principle for the left.