The recent article from The Nation, dated April 17, 2025, underscores tariffs and trade as central components in the challenge against monopoly power and for fostering self-governance. The article highlights the closures of significant U.S. industrial facilities, such as the nation’s last penicillin fermentation plant in 2004, as indicators of a shifting industrial landscape.
The article critiques Donald Trump’s tariffs, equating their negative economic impact to the devastation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic. The tariffs are predicted to increase consumer prices, harm small businesses, drive farmers into bankruptcy, and result in significant macroeconomic damage. Simultaneously, the discussion around trade, sovereignty, and industrial policy is being warped by the Trump narrative.
Several pundits, including Jonathan Chait, Eric Levitz, and Josh Barro, are noted for attempting to dismiss tariffs and trade tools in the wake of Trump’s policies. Their publications in prominent media outlets like The New York Times, The Atlantic, and Vox allegedly conflate Trump’s tariffs with the broader concept of tariffs, persuading Democrats to shun the trade issue, due to its association with Trump.
The ongoing debate within the Democratic Party highlights a rift between the neoliberal wing and other factions. Despite the neoliberal dominance during the Clinton and Obama administrations, the progressive wing started to gain ground post-2008. This shift left Obama unable to advance the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and Hillary Clinton’s globalist associations partly contributed to her electoral defeat—an observation that influenced Joe Biden’s pro-industrial policy approach.
Recent polling reflects a negative shift toward tariffs, contrasting with earlier responses. The neoliberal faction is eager to leverage this sentiment to influence Democratic leadership and the upcoming electoral cycle. Chait’s argument aligns all tariffs with those imposed by Trump, which he claims illustrate the dangers of trade barriers, while Barro’s contention views Democratic support for tariffs as merely servicing specific interest groups like autoworkers, rather than the broader national interest.
The article suggests that comparing all tariffs to those enacted during the Smoot-Hawley era is misleading. It emphasizes the need for industrial policy that balances between radical trade liberalization and protectionism. Trade policies are presented as akin to anti-monopoly policies, focusing on power distribution within the economy and the rules governing it. Historical legislation, like the New Deal, treated trade policy as a tool for economic stability and democracy, strategically using tariffs to bolster domestic manufacturing and the middle class.
The modern trade landscape, influenced by agreements like NAFTA, shifted control to multinational corporations, prioritizing cost-cutting and eroding national resilience. The current dependence on international sources for critical goods, such as vitamins and antibiotics, poses a risk to national autonomy and security.
The article argues for reclaiming trade policies that reflect public values and prioritize economic independence, asserting that democracy should guide such policy direction. In essence, trade is seen as not merely a technical economic issue but a crucial battleground against monopoly power and for the principle of self-governance.
