Are There Any Precedents for 2024?

2025's first subscriber questions, also looking at the likelihood of tariffs, why we should repeal the 22nd amendment, and whether I was wrong about JD Vance.

(Credit for the voiceover for this article goes to the great Samuel Lipson)

Swanpai asks: What do you think the likelihood is that Trump enacts the massive, sweeping tariffs he’s proposed?

I think it is likely for one reason: his recent obsession with bringing up William McKinley at every possible opportunity. This is a break from how he spoke about tariffs in the past: i.e., as one of many tools he said he would use to accomplish his supposed goals of bringing jobs back from overseas. That, as a stance, was hardly as unique as it has been made out to be. Even in the post-1980 era, both the Reagan and Bush administrations implemented tariffs on steel multiple times during their tenures, doing so in each instance for the same reasons Trump says tariffs should be used now. It was also under Obama, not Trump, that the U.S. began using tariffs as part of a geopolitical strategy against China, starting first with tires but later expanding to more “strategically important” industries like solar panels. In this sense, Trump’s first term policy of explicit trade wars (especially against the PRC) represented a degree of continuity with the policies of his predecessors. Case in point: after he left office, his policies ended up being adopted and expanded upon by the Biden administration itself.

Had Trump stuck to this pre-existing rhetoric, I’d find it hard to disagree with Wall Street in its current assessment that nothing truly meaningful is in the cards. In recent years, however, Trump has started to talk about tariffs in an entirely different and far more expansive way. Instead of referring to them as tools to be used for specific economic or foreign policy objectives, he now speaks of them as the backbone for his entire agenda. For an example, remember those incredibly expensive tax cuts that he promised during the campaign on things like tips, overtime pay, and social security income? Most of us assumed that he was just pandering by floating ideas without any plans to pay for them, but he actually had one: his 20% across-the-board tariffs. In other words, phasing out income tax revenue in favor of revenue from taxes on imports.

This is precisely where the McKinley obsession comes into play. While the usage of tariffs as the government’s primary source of revenue has no modern precedent in either the U.S. or abroad, it is precisely how the federal government operated during the 19th century. William McKinley’s administration represented this system at its peak, when tariffs were at the highest and the industrial interests that controlled the Republican Party were at their most politically powerful. This was, needless to say, far different from the modern usage of tariffs as a mere economic or geopolitical tool. It was an era where the tariff was at the heart of how the U.S. government functioned, and it is exactly what Trump has become obsessed with. Given that Congress has largely delegated the power to set tariffs to the executive branch, there will be little in the way to stop him if he decides to go all the way with his newest fixation.

Aqua asks: What do you think is the best historical analogy for this election result in terms of cultural, historical, and political impact: Nixon 1968, Reagan 1980, or Bush 2004?