Republicans are mad at each other, and despite the MAGA true believers, it isn't because some conservatives are just weak-kneed pantywaists who are unwilling to fight for what is right.
The arguments on both sides of the tariff issue are, for the most part, made in good faith and based on differences over what Trump intends to do, why he is playing chicken over tariffs, what his long-term economic strategy is, and whether it will work.
The arguments, however good faith, are not academic or even cordial. They are nasty as hell in some cases, even among people who generally love Trump and want him to succeed.
One of the highest-power disagreements over Trump's tariff policies is playing out in real-time between Peter Navarro, who is Trump's point man on trade, and Elon Musk, who has become nearly a surrogate son for the president. Elon is anti-tariff, Navarro is a huge booster of them.
TARIFFS: After Peter Navarro put his foot in his mouth discussing Tesla on CNBC, Elon Musk called the Senior Counselor to the President a moron suggesting he was dumber than a sack of bricks. Contrary to Peter's claims, Tesla is THE most American car in the world.
— @amuse (@amuse) April 8, 2025
h/t… pic.twitter.com/yON59aLQbc
The fight is NASTY--very personal, and a microcosm of a huge split among Trump's supporters.
Elon Musk continues to go after Peter Navarro, President Trump’s White House trade and manufacturing czar.
— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) April 8, 2025
Musk calls him “Peter Retarrdo,” says he’s a “moron,” and “dumber than a sack of bricks.”
He then tags Navarro’s X account and one of his favorite accounts,… pic.twitter.com/pUzI7cND1f
Elon Musk continues to go after Peter Navarro, President Trump’s White House trade and manufacturing czar.
Musk calls him “Peter Retarrdo,” says he’s a “moron,” and “dumber than a sack of bricks.”
He then tags Navarro’s X account and one of his favorite accounts, “Ifindretards.”
He then references Ron Vara, a fictional character created by Navarro for his books, whom he quoted as a real person in order to validate his points
Finally, Musk sarcastically apologizes and says, “I’d like to apologize to bricks for calling Peter Retarrdo dumber than a sack of bricks. That was so unfair to bricks.”
Trump's loyal henchmen on Twitter and in the media are going on a rampage, blasting every dissenter, calling them "Panicans" with abandon, and using the tried-and-true tactic of insulting rather than engaging any opposition. Strategically, this works when rallying Trump's supporters, but it makes people like me cringe because I actually want to understand an issue before lining up on a team.
I find it repulsive and MAGA's worst sin. It is basically an Alinsky tactic, and yet I understand intellectually that they do this because it works. And in the world of bare-knuckled politics, what works is what matters.
My problem is simple: who is right in the argument depends very much on what you assume about Trump's strategy and what the final outcome will be. If Trump likes tariffs because he believes them to be a good way to make America richer and that they should be permanent because of that, he is mostly wrong. Across-the-board tariffs are a beggar-thy-neighbor strategy, all other things being equal.
I've urged Trump to use tariffs wisely. One path leverages them for better trade deals and the other path leaves them in place longterm.
— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) April 9, 2025
His announcement today signals we're on the right track—benefiting U.S. workers and businesses while pushing fair trade. pic.twitter.com/E0c6TkRtbs
Economically speaking--and I mean only economically--reduced trade is always and everywhere a bad thing except in cases where somebody is committing fraud. Each side is exchanging something of lower value to them than what they get in return. I spent $1500 on a MacBook Pro because I want the MacBook Pro more than I want to keep the $1500, and vice versa.
Trade is how we redistribute goods and services from people who want what the other has, leaving everybody better off. It is why capitalism works. Tariffs increase the costs of trade and lower everybody's well-being.
That is the abstract economic theory, and it has been proven by experience.
Now for the complicated multivariate world, which isn't quite so clear-cut. First, there is no real free trade in the real world. Countries impose trade barriers, whether they be tariffs, currency manipulation, subsidies, or other policies, to shape the exchange of goods and services. They do this because they value non-economic goods such as maintaining manufacturing jobs, social cohesion or types of income distribution, or the gaining of value-added skills that will improve prosperity in the long run. That, too, is a purchase, trading off immediate economic gains for other benefits or gains in the future.
Trade barriers are often seen as investment costs. China artificially kept its currency cheap and subsidized manufacturing in other ways to build up an industrial base, a skill set, and a more valuable working class that used to be peasants and are now highly skilled. It was a great strategy for them. Companies moved production to China because it was cheaper; many now manufacture there because the industrial base and skilled workforce are more valuable than lower labor costs in poorer countries.
Tariff opponents are right that Trump is sacrificing economic efficiency and may be endangering long-term prosperity by radically slowing down world trade and freezing investment due to uncertainty. The markets thought that was true until today's tariff pause--they weren't crashing because they opposed Trump or don't care about America--they were worried that everybody would get poorer, including Americans.
But Trump's strategy doesn't seem to be imposing huge trade restrictions in the longer term. What if, as seems likely, Trump is throwing a wrench into the system because he thinks the system is rigged and needs redesign? After all, China's trade barriers were good for China, not good for the United States. Why should we be happy to see China build up its industrial base and steal our manufacturing jobs?
This is all a gambit to renegotiate the system in a way that both reduces tariffs elsewhere and reduces other trade barriers; it most likely will turn out to be a boon. Tariff skeptics haven't bought that this is Trump's strategy, and they have plenty of evidence to show that.
They have had reason to believe that. Trump may have been bluffing, but he sure didn't shout "I'm bluffing." He has been playing Chicken, and the stakes are very high.
The fight is real. The panic has been real. The uncertainty is obviously real, with trillions of dollars on the line. And Trump is reveling in that.
Will it all work out with a more prosperous America? That is likely.
Will it lead to an economic collapse? That is possible, too. The Smoot-Hawley tariffs certainly weren't a great economic success.
