George F. Will: Tariffs, swagger & Trump |

George F. Will: Tariffs, swagger & Trump

President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with steel and aluminum executives in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Thursday, March 1, 2018. From left, Beth Ludwig of AK Steel, Roger Newport of AK Steel, John Ferriola of Nucor, Trump, and Dave Burritt of U.S. Steel Corp.


Is it too much to ask that the government not insult our intelligence while it lightens our wallets? Before his predictable announcement of 25-percent steel and 10-percent aluminum tariffs, the president held a “listening session;” executives of steel and aluminum companies urged him to do what he intended. He ended this charade of deliberation by announcing the tax increases.

Tariffs are taxes collected at the border, paid by U.S. consumers. But steel-using industries’ 6.5 million employees (46 times the number of steelmaking jobs) and hundreds of millions of consumers of steel- and aluminum-content products should salute, not complain: The president says the tariffs are national-security necessities.

Never mind that the Cato Institute’s Colin Grabow notes that defense-related products require only 3 percent and 10 percent of domestic steel and aluminum production, respectively. Or that six of the top 10 nations that export steel to the U.S. (military competitor and potential adversary China is not among the top 10) have mutual defense agreements with the U.S. Or that aluminum and steel for military uses will be more expensive — so, effectively, the administration is cutting the defense budget. Cato’s Dan Ikenson says its argument seems to be “that an abundance of low-priced raw materials from a diversity of sources somehow threatens national security.”

Electrolux, Europe’s largest manufacturer of household appliances, responded to the U.S. tariffs by suspending plans to invest $250 million in a Tennessee factory. Before the tariffs’ announcement, Whirlpool’s CEO — who had just successfully sought tariffs and import quotas on foreign washing machines that will punish American purchasers of appliances — lamented that rising prices of steel and other materials might knock $250 million off profits. As Lily Tomlin says, “No matter how cynical you become, it’s never enough to keep up.”

Congress has given presidents vast trade discretion. Now, this capacity for mischief is in the hands of someone who knows next to nothing about the one thing — business — he is supposed to know something about.

Protectionism slices through core conservative principles, including opposition to government industrial policy, government picking winners and losers, and crony capitalism elevated to an ethic (“A Few Americans First”). Government does not get bigger or bossier than when it embraces protectionism. Down the decades, Trump has shown an impressive versatility of conviction, but the one constant has been hostility to free trade. It perfectly expresses his adolescent delight in executive swagger, the objectives of which are of negligible importance to him; all that is important is that the spotlight follows where his impulses propel him.

For more than a century, enlarged executive power has been the sun at the center of progressives’ solar system of aspirations. Hence protectionism. So, if the Democrats capture either house of Congress on Nov. 6, on Nov. 7 there will be, effectively, an accommodating Democrat in the presidency.

George F. Will is a columnist for Newsweek and The Washington Post.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.