• Both major U.S. parties have embraced protectionist trade policies – not out of conviction but as a response to political fatigue and public distrust, resulting in symbolic gestures over sound strategy.
  • Tariffs, while politically popular, fail to address underlying economic challenges and reflect a deeper breakdown in governance, credibility, and constitutional accountability.
  • Revitalizing American industry and trust in government requires substance over spectacle – through structural reform, economic freedom, and a return to constitutional limits.


In his 2018 book The Revolt of the Public, Martin Gurri warned that political history may increasingly be driven “by negation rather than contradiction” — not by a contest of ideas, but by a nihilistic rejection of the status quo, regardless of consequences. Today, this dynamic is vividly displayed in U.S. trade policy, where both major political parties have adopted protectionism — not from a coherent economic philosophy, but from a shared sense of political exhaustion.

Recent developments in U.S. trade relations reveal how hollow this new protectionism has become. On April 24, the BBC reported that Chinese officials demanded that the U.S. cancel tariffs before any trade negotiations could resume​, undercutting the claim that tariffs offer effective leverage. Meanwhile, in Europe, confusion reigned after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced that President Trump had agreed to restart U.S./EU trade talks following an informal conversation while both attended the funeral of Pope Francis at the Vatican — a signal of how much personal spectacle, rather than structured policy, now dominates critical economic diplomacy. Protectionism has not restored America’s negotiating strength; it has revealed its political vulnerabilities. As Gurri foresaw, the politics of performance stand in for serious governance.

President Trump’s April 2 executive order on reciprocal tariffs exemplifies this trend of performative politics over substantive governance. The order reduces complex global economics to a simplistic tit-for-tat rather than addressing the structural causes of trade imbalances, like tax rates, domestic savings rates, regulatory environments, and consumer behavior. As scholars at the American Enterprise Institute have rightly pointed out, trade flows are rarely symmetrical. Yet the deeper flaw is political, not economic: the appeal of “fairness” through tariff parity is less a strategy for growth than a symbolic act of negation — a way to reject the global system without offering credible alternatives. It reflects the populist temptation Gurri describes: to tear down perceived injustices when credible reforms seem too slow, difficult, or costly.

The tariff formula’s popularity stems not from its promise of success, but from its resonance with a public increasingly distrustful of expertise, negotiation, and compromise.

When policy becomes political performance

Yet Trump is not alone. Despite its rhetorical opposition to Trump-era tariffs, the Biden administration quietly kept them in place. In May 2024, several national news outlets, including Axios and NPR, reported that, despite reviewing the Trump administration’s Chinese tariffs, Biden retained them and added more items to the list.

This convergence is not about trade. It’s about legitimacy and competence. Americans are weary of political promises that never materialize — on jobs, fairness, and national renewal. As Gurri observes, “Once the public accepts the claims, an expectation will have been formed, and failure to perform will appear like a breach of the social contract.” Tariffs have become a substitute for real results: they perform action without solving problems.

The breach of trust between voters and government

For decades, Americans have been fed grand political promises with little to show for them. President George W. Bush pledged that “no child” would be left behind, yet academic outcomes remain stagnant. President Barack Obama touted “shovel-ready” stimulus projects, only to later admit they weren’t so shovel-ready after all. Across the political spectrum, citizens are losing faith, not in capitalism or the postwar liberal order, as some claim, but in the chronic overpromising of politicians who often pledge what a constitutional government was never meant to deliver. The resulting backlash isn’t ideological, it’s existential. Voters aren’t demanding radical change; they’re demanding credibility.

Constitutionally, Congress, not the executive, has the power to regulate trade (see Article I, Section 8, clauses 1 and 3). However, years of legislative inaction and broad delegation of authority on trade, war powers, and the budget have blurred the lines of accountability, leaving the public to assume the President can act unilaterally.

But the demand of voters echoes a much older insight.

America’s Founders envisioned a limited government precisely because they understood the dangers of promising more than a republic can deliver. In Federalist No. 45, James Madison warned that governments that try to do everything for everyone will end up doing nothing well and risk losing the trust of free people.

Many working-class Americans see protectionism as a shield against economic forces they can’t control — automation, global supply chains, and the loss of once-stable industries. In my home state of North Carolina, the decline of the textile industry left deep scars on many communities. Their frustration is real. However, while market disruption is painful, it is not the government’s role to insulate people from economic change. The dynamism of innovation and open exchange can be unsettling, but it also creates new opportunities, raises living standards, and fuels long-term prosperity. As economist Joseph Schumpeter wrote in his 1942 classic Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, “The capitalist achievement does not typically consist in providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within reach of factory girls in return for steadily decreasing amounts of effort.”

The real danger is not globalization, but the illusion that government can reverse these realities with tariffs and slogans.

Globalization vs. globalism: A dangerous confusion

In this vacuum of credibility, protectionism becomes a blunt instrument wielded against perceived global elites. But in their zeal, many on the New Right confuse globalization with globalism. Globalization is an economic reality — the integration of markets and supply chains across borders. Globalism, by contrast, is an ideological aspiration for post-national governance and cultural homogenization. One is a set of trade routes; the other is a worldview.

Globalization reflects decisions made by millions of individuals and firms seeking efficiency and prosperity. Globalism, by contrast, is driven by top-down institutions aiming to reshape national identities and dissolve borders. Importing Japanese steel is sometimes just a business necessity, not a corporation plotting the rise of a one-world government. Rejecting globalism’s overreach is a legitimate debate. However, targeting globalization through tariffs and trade barriers mistakes the map for the terrain and risks self-sabotage in the name of sovereignty.

While tariffs claim to protect American jobs, they distract from the deeper reforms needed to revitalize American industry. Extending the 2017 tax cuts, particularly for corporations and manufacturers, would strengthen America’s global competitiveness. But tax relief without meaningful fiscal restraint merely worsens the government’s balance sheet, increasing the risk of monetary instability. As The Economist warned on April 16, America’s soaring deficits and loose fiscal policies could eventually trigger a crisis of confidence in the dollar itself​. Political theater over trade hides a graver reality: a republic living beyond its means, mortgaging its future for short-term applause.

Protectionism endures because it offers the illusion of control. It blames foreign adversaries. It signals strength. But it also raises consumer prices, disrupts supply chains, invites retaliation, and weakens our global competitiveness. It is not a long-term strategy — it is a short-term sedative.

Restoring substance over spectacle

The deeper danger is philosophical. When both parties default to protectionism, not out of conviction but from fear of the public’s disillusionment, we inch closer to a politics defined by spectacle over substance. Nihilism is not just a rejection of the status quo — it is the belief that all existing ideas must be discarded and that any alternative, however reckless, is preferable.

Americans are right to demand competence and accountability. But tariffs will not restore either of them. We must reclaim the politics of persuasion — a politics willing to make the difficult case for free markets, open exchange, and limited government. Until we do, protectionism will endure, not as a strategy but as a surrender to decay.