Editor's note: All opinions, columns and letters reflect the views of the individual writer and not necessarily those of the IDS or its staffers.
President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs have been confused, chaotic and disastrous. He touted his tariff regime as an effort to onshore manufacturing. Yet, simultaneously, he’s undermined this goal by also claiming them to be both a replacement for income tax and merely a geopolitical negotiating tactic. In enacting his tariffs, Trump circumvented the Republican controlled Congress, spooked foreign investors and plunged markets into turmoil.
The policy was announced April 2, introducing a 10% baseline tariff of all imports from all countries and additional “reciprocal tariffs” to be placed on certain nations with large trade deficits. On April 9, the same day the increased rates took effect, Trump reversed course and announced a 90-day pause on the reciprocal rates on all countries except for China, while maintaining the 10% baseline rate. Most recently, the White House announced that electronics imported from China, like smartphones, would be exempt from the steep 145% tariff on Chinese goods and will only be subject to his 20% “fentanyl tariff” until his “semiconductor tariff” is announced in “probably a month or two.”
Despite facing backlash from Wall Street donors and those fearing for their retirement portfolios, few Republicans have dared to criticize their president. Trump’s vice grip on the Republican party is owed to the tremendous political capital he’s accrued branding himself as anti-establishment to the electorate. Trump is afforded the leeway to break norms and threaten stability because he uniquely sympathizes with the economic hardship associated with those norms and reflects a nostalgia for a time before it.
Economists often dub the period between 1945-79 the “Golden Age of Capitalism,” when the U.S. economy saw consistent, unprecedented growth in gross domestic product. New Deal policies ushered in an era of skyrocketing wages in unionized manufacturing jobs, affordable homeownership and a robust social safety net that assured a dignified life to the elderly, disabled, and unemployed. The increasing economic mobility of the middle class provided fertile ground for many hallmarks of American culture to sprout.
Families had the luxury of buying their own homes and automobiles, which quickly became a staple of the American dream. The burgeoning auto industry made cities like Detroit into boom towns. This newfound affluence allowed citizens to spend time and money on leisure, spawning iconic cultural staples of the era like Motown Records. Consumer goods like radios and televisions were now affordable, meaning Americans could enjoy football, baseball and basketball from the comfort of their living rooms. However, this trend of shared prosperity began to reverse in the 1970s as American politics left the New Deal era and entered the neoliberal era.
A bipartisan consensus formed in Washington supporting free-trade, deregulation of business, reducing the welfare state and military interventionism. While President Jimmy Carter implemented austerity measures and cut industry regulations, President Ronald Reagan fully embraced neoliberalism with his tax cuts, rampant deregulation and surge in military spending. President Bill Clinton carried neoliberalism into the new millennium, signing the NAFTA free-trade deal, balancing the federal budget by gutting the welfare state and expanding NATO influence eastward through enlargement and bombing in Yugoslavia.
While neoliberal policies provided massive gains for American companies, the benefits never trickled down. Instead of sharing in the riches, workers saw the decline of the industrial Midwest, perpetual involvement in foreign wars and a middle-class little wealthier than they were in the 70s. Wealth inequality exploded in this period as corporate America outsourced manufacturing and spent their savings on executive compensation and shareholder dividends.
As America entered the 21st century, the consequences of neoliberalism began to manifest. Bipartisan deregulation of the finance sector under President Clinton led to the subprime mortgage crisis and Great Recession of 2008. In its wake, dissatisfaction toward a failing political status-quo propelled Barack Obama to a landslide 2008 victory on a platform of systemic “change.” Instead, the public received more neoliberalism; banks that enriched themselves gambling on people’s mortgages received a taxpayer funded bailout while millions lost their jobs and homes.
As Obama failed to depart from neoliberalism, dissatisfaction turned to cross-sectional anger. On the political left, anger manifested as the Occupy Wall Street movement. While Occupy was acknowledged by Democrat leadership, the party establishment failed to provide an outlet for their frustrations. Presidential primary bids from Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020 echoed anger with the neoliberal consensus but were stymied and rejected by party leadership in favor of candidates inextricably linked with the legacy of neoliberalism in Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden.
The right, however, gave refuge to the anger, absorbing it into the Republican mainstream. Failures of neoliberalism became understood by the Republican base as the failures of elite institutions; notably a bloated, wasteful and out-of-touch federal bureaucracy perceived to despise their “traditional” values. The Tea Party movement saw the party appropriate this anger, as voters replaced several Republican incumbents with firebrands echoing that understanding in the 2010 congressional primaries.
It was in this context that Trump ascended to power. Speaking to the damage inflicted by free-trade and perpetual involvement in foreign wars, Trump reflected a resentment towards the neoliberal consensus and a contempt for the institutions, cultural attitudes and figureheads associated with it. Without competition on his populist rhetoric, Trump stood alone to voters as the anti-establishment candidate on the 2016 ballot, winning him former Democrat strongholds in the rustbelt and, ultimately, the presidency.
I don’t have good news for those hoping for an end to the Trump era; it’s here to stay. The context expressed in this piece should serve as a lesson to the Democrats and anyone hoping to counter Trump’s power. There is electoral success to be found in populist messaging that mirrors the justified anger of a working class that’s been shafted for a generation. The viable counter to Trump will build their power by railing against institutions and politicians captured by corporate America, and advocate for radical, universal, redistributive policies.
Eivin Sandstrom (he/him) is a Senior studying political science and Spanish; he can be found on social media @UplandSandy.
