
© Michael Reynolds / Global Look Press
US President Donald J. Trump, 08 March 2018.
It would be an understatement to suggest that Trump's decision to slap higher tariffs on practically everybody - has outraged almost everyone: most of the business community, foreign governments, media and experts from all fields.
President Donald Trump, it is said, is
unleashing a global trade war, which is already beginning with promised
retaliatory measures from our closest trading partners. Trump justified his action by claiming that steel and aluminum are strategic materials essential for national defense. In all likelihood national defense had little to do with his action. Rather, it is a ploy to put a
"national security" halo around a measure being taken for economic reasons.
That doesn't mean it's the wrong move, however. It's important to put these measures into the context of long-term US trade policy. US trade policy since World War II could almost have been designed to undermine the economic interests of American workers and American producers. Starting with Germany and Japan, our defeated enemies, we offered them the proverbial deal they can't refuse: they get virtually tariff-free, nonreciprocal access to our huge domestic market to assist with their economies' recovery from wartime destruction; in return, we would take their sovereignty: control of their foreign and security policies, as well as their military and intelligence establishments, plus permanent bases on their territory.
Comment: Here are a few questions for social justice warriors to reflect upon:
Are mainstream media outlets being more or less racists if they treat a black president better than others because he is black? Is it racist to say that a president got better treatment because he is black, as it patronizingly assumes he couldn't do better by his own efforts alone? What if it's the truth? What if they had treated him better had he been white? What if they treated him worse for being white?