Subscribe to the White House Watch newsletter at no cost
Your source for understanding the implications of the 2024 US election on Washington and beyond
The tribute to David Ricardo in Bloomsbury appears almost crafted to be overlooked. Nearby, the statue of another proponent of free trade, Richard Cobden, has unfortunately become a favored spot for local birds. Thus, an appropriate visual metaphor—illustrating the tarnished and neglected concept of trade—might have been the starting point for this article a few weeks back.
However, the situation has shifted. The Ricardian perspective now enjoys robust support from various quarters. This includes financial markets which believe that Donald Trump’s tariffs will result in wealth destruction; the Chinese embassy in Washington, which invokes Ronald Reagan’s arguments against protectionism back to his party; and notably, the left, which has refrained from defending tariffs as a reaffirmation of the state’s role. In taking this commendable stance, progressives may not fully recognize the implications they are acknowledging—such as the importance of price competition—but let’s not discourage them.
For the first time since the 2008 financial crisis, globalization has regained its favorable standing. Those attempting to reverse it find themselves in a position of moral and intellectual weakness. Protectionism has proven to be a cause that thrives only in favorable circumstances: it garners support as long as no tangible sacrifice is required.
Of course, the success of ideas means little if tariffs continue to rise due to retaliatory measures from the US, China, and the EU. Winning the debate offers scant comfort if the world is lost in the process. That said, real-world events typically follow the currents of thought, albeit with some delay. The concept of “liberation day” emerged after a prolonged period in which proponents of free trade lost their confidence.
It is significant that long-held liberal principles can once again be articulated. For instance, running a current account deficit does not equate to failure. Workers are also consumers. Protectionism serves primarily to enrich lobbyists. (Consider the exemptions for consumer electronics.) While trade may not guarantee peace, it has the potential to link once-opposing nations. (The Cobden statue benefited from funding from Napoleon III.) An alternate timeline where the US somehow stifled China’s industrial ascent must include higher consumer prices: indeed, it raises the possibility that the achievement of inflation control during the 1990s might never have occurred. Above all, don’t mistakenly assign credibility to “limited” tariffs, like the Biden administration’s “small yard with a high fence.” No government can unilaterally decide how the rest of the world will respond.
This shift in intellectual climate should influence the behavior of governments over time, especially considering the setback faced by a second protectionist president in succession. Following the electoral disappointment of Bidenomics, it is now Trump’s turn to misinterpret the working class as yearning to return to the manual jobs of their ancestors. One needs a college degree to accept such patronizing nonsense, a notion that comedian Dave Chappelle has effectively challenged. (“I want to wear Nikes, not make them.”) In 2025, what constitutes a “worker”? Likely a sales representative who moonlights as a gig driver, whose primary interaction with trade is through the purchase of inexpensive goods. While 80 percent of Americans desire more factories, only 25 percent wish to work in them. Manual labor is for others, not for oneself.
Will a third consecutive president fall into the protectionist trap? It seems somewhat less likely now than it did at the start of the month. That is Trump’s unintentional contribution to the cause of globalization.
Trade ought to be a widely embraced, even populist, cause, akin to the Anti-Corn Law League of the 1800s. The term “globalist” should carry positive connotations. If world leaders are not yet ready to go that far, they should at least refrain from discussing a post-global era, a notion that the well-meaning leaders of Canada and Singapore have promoted. Trade’s share of global output remains stagnant at levels comparable to those just before the financial crash. However, it is higher than it was at the turn of the millennium, when it was twice the rate of trade in 1970. We may currently be experiencing either a plateau in trade or a temporary decline from a historically elevated level. (A similar situation applies to the other half of liberalism: political freedom. While the count of democracies is down, it still exceeds levels that were scarcely imaginable in the 1970s.) Do not grant protectionists victories that have yet to be justified.
As globalization gains newfound supporters, this relief is tinged with regret. The time for advocacy was many years ago. Instead, rational voices acquiesced to tariffs because a Democratic president imposed them. It remains disturbingly easy within elite circles to mockingly boo the concept of “neoliberalism.” The foundational premise of that term is flawed. It is simply untrue that Reagan, Thatcher, and their successors abandoned the populace to the forces of the global market. In the US and the UK, as well as Australia, France, and beyond, social spending as a share of GDP in both 2008 and now exceeds levels from 1980.
The takeaway? Liberals often prefer to feel good rather than think deeply. In cultural debates, the reason woke-ism progressed as far as it did was not due to the few zealots immersed in critical theory. It was the failure of those more moderate—who couldn’t bear to appear as harsh—who resisted countering them. A similarly lax attitude has allowed protectionism to flourish since the financial crisis. Eager to be perceived as virtuous and contrite, liberals have tolerated all kinds of economic nonsense. Even today, I suspect many are only supporting trade because it stands opposed to Trump. His accidental service to the cause is noteworthy, even if unintentional.
