President Donald Trump rolled out sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs Wednesday on trading partners and allies across the globe.
The president unveiled a baseline 10% levy on all international imports, plus what he described as additional “kind” and “discounted” tariff rates that will increase but not match the rates other countries apply to American imports.
The levies, effective at midnight, will hit U.S. industries from agriculture to manufacturing to fashion.
According to a table distributed at Trump’s speech, U.S. tariffs will reach 34% on imports from China, 46% on products from Vietnam and 20% on European Union imports, among other increases.
Countries that levy a 10% tax on American goods — including Brazil and the United Kingdom — will only see a 10% match.
The increased levies come as 25% tariffs on foreign cars kick in at midnight. It’s unclear whether the tariffs will stack.
Business owners who purchase goods from outside the U.S. will have to pay the increased duty rates to bring the products over the border, unless Trump carves out exceptions for certain industries. The president did not mention carve-outs in his remarks.
Trump introduced the taxes on imports with fanfare Wednesday in the White House Rose Garden, where he said, “This is Liberation Day.”
“April 2, 2025, will forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn,” Trump said.
“For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike,” Trump said.
Republican lawmakers, including House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana and Georgia U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, attended the event alongside several of Trump’s Cabinet members and representatives from the United Auto Workers.
The White House has circulated figures claiming the U.S. will raise up to $600 billion in revenue per year as a result of the tariffs. The figure was met with skepticism by economists because the amount of imports will likely change under higher levies.
The U.S. is the largest importer of goods in the world, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The country’s top suppliers in 2022 included China, Mexico, Canada, Japan and Germany.
Economists: Americans will pay
Since Trump began campaigning on tariffs, economists have warned that increased costs for businesses will be passed onto consumers.
Rising prices under Trump’s “reciprocal” tariff scenario are likely to cost an extra $2,400 to $3,400 per family, according to the Yale Budget Lab, with most of the financial burden falling on the lowest-income households.
An analysis from the Peterson Institute on International Economics estimated the typical American household would lose over $1,200, just from the 25% tariffs already imposed on China, Canada and Mexico.
Several small business owners told States Newsroom Tuesday they’re worried about increasing production costs and whether higher prices will chase away customer demand.
Erica York, of the center-right Tax Foundation that advocates for lower taxes, said in an interview with States Newsroom Tuesday that the levies will be “the largest peacetime tax increase we’ve seen in history.”
State officials worry over impact
Democratic state officials sounded the alarm Wednesday over losses for key industries that drive their local economies.
New Mexico State Treasurer Laura Montoya said her state’s energy and agriculture sectors would be victims in a trade war.
“New Mexico is a key player in this conversation, because the non-negotiable reality is that New Mexico is, like the United States as a whole, dependent on trade with our international partners particularly Mexico,” Montoya said on a virtual press briefing hosted by the state economic advocacy group Americans for Responsible Growth.
Montoya said oil and gas production accounts for 35% of the state’s budget and that the industry relies on machinery imported from Mexico.
Additionally, New Mexico, a largely rural state, relies heavily on agricultural trade. It processes a third of the cattle coming across the southwest border, and Montoya said farmers and ranchers will “face blows as tariffs on cattle and produce will result in slow food production.”
Washington state, a top U.S. agricultural exporter, sources 90% of its fertilizer from Canada.
Treasurer Mike Pellicciotti said the state would be “completely squeezed” by “reckless economic decisions.”
“He is crushing the free exchange of goods, and making it much more difficult and much more burdensome on working families. So of course, he needs to call it ‘Liberation Day,’ because he knows he’s doing the complete opposite, and he is trying to frame it in a way that is completely the opposite of what is being accomplished today,” Pellicciotti said.
Dems predict consumer stress
Democrats on Capitol Hill seized on Trump’s new trade policy as a way to push their message that the president is abandoning middle and working class households.
Sen. Angela Alsbrooks of Maryland said the White House is “tone-deaf” in dubbing the tariff announcement as “Liberation Day.”
Trump has said in media interviews, “‘You know, there’s going to be a little pain, some minor pain and disruption.’ But the people that I represent don’t regard increasing costs of groceries, increasing costs of owning a home, increasing costs of owning an automobile, as a minor disruption,” Alsobrooks said.
In back-to-back Democratic press conferences Wednesday, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia slammed Trump’s use of emergency powers in March to justify a 10% duty on Canadian energy and 25% on all other imports.
Kaine warned about the effect on his state’s sizable shipbuilding industry. Approximately 35% of steel and aluminum used to build U.S. ships and submarines comes from Canada, he said.
Senators were poised to force a vote Wednesday evening on a bill, sponsored by Kaine, that would undo Trump’s tariffs on Canadian imports triggered by an emergency declaration targeting illicit fentanyl coming over the northern border.
Trump’s action under the International Emergency Economics Power Act marked the first time a president ever used the law to impose tariffs.
Kaine pointed to a report Wednesday in Canadian news outlet The Globe and Mail that found the White House grossly overstated the amount of fentanyl smuggled through the northern border.
“Canada stood with us on 9/11, Canada has stood side-by-side with U.S. troops in every war we have been in. They have fought with our troops. They’ve bled with our troops. They’ve died with our troops in every war since the war of 1812, and yet we’re going to treat them like an enemy,” Kaine said.
Kaine’s bill, co-signed by eight Democratic and independent senators, drew one Republican co-sponsor, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.
The bill has gained statements of support from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and former Vice President Mike Pence’s advocacy group Advancing American Freedom, among numerous organizations across the political spectrum.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries criticized Trump’s anticipated tariff announcement Wednesday morning at his weekly press conference.
“We were told that grocery costs were going to go down on day one of the Trump presidency. Costs aren’t going down in America. They’re going up, and the Trump tariffs are going to make things more costly,” Jeffries, of New York, said.
–Ashley Murray, Florida Phoenix
Deborah Coffey says
Okay. Ready yourselves, MAGAs. Your big payoff will arrive shortly. It’s called RECESSION. You’re about to lose your homes and go hungry. And, the sad part is, you actually believe that Donald Trump will care. You don’t know how much he really despises you and uses you up for his own benefit. Brace yourselves.
JC says
I expected nothing less than a former NYC Democrat to push for a popular tactic that was once popular with Democrats: Tariffs. With his announcement yesterday, he was close with the Auto Unions who claim they are ok with paying more so things are built in America.
Sorry, but wages will not go up that much, which will put more pain on our pocketbooks.
His real friends are the auto unions, which means I will continue to buy vehicles that aren’t built in an Union plant since to me Union = Higher Cost.
Which is funny that the current GOP are just Democrats with different paint.
Laurel says
So, how’s your IRA doing? Right this moment, the market is down 1,500 points. One maga we know stated he didn’t care about the market because he has no stocks. Such and incredibly limited view! Trump is decimating the economy, and the world market. Our chance of recession is now 50%. I believe it’s much higher. Here’s something the magas need to learn:
stagflation /stăg-flā′shən/
noun
Sluggish economic growth coupled with a high rate of inflation and unemployment. Inflation accompanied by stagnant growth, unemployment or recession. A period of slow economic growth and high unemployment (stagnation) while prices rise (inflation).
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition •
Magas need to learn that dependency is something that is world wide, and cannot be narrowed down to one country. Our businesses is getting hit hard! People are already starting to reconsider spending money here at home. This is not good for anyone! Trump is tanking the world.
This is what I want Trump supporters to think about: Imagine, with the stock market down the way it is now, how would you feel if your Social Security and your Medicare was privatized?
Laurel says
Our businesses ARE getting hit hard. Many big box stores, that brought you inexpensive products, are severely down. People have to realize that we have moved on from general manufacturing, and left it to poorer countries like China. China has cheap labor, and is in closer vicinity to resources. While President Biden smartly worked to bring chip technology manufacturing here, so that China could not bypass us with this important technology, Trump wants to take us back in time, and back to general manufacturing, for everything we need, which means it needs cheap labor, or we close shop permanently.
The only way to keep a good economy going, is to have spending. One person works, gains a paycheck, and pays the plumber to fix the pipes, or maybe buys a new car. The plumber buys more tools, and takes the family out to dinner. The cooks gets paid and purchases a new house. Money turns over. Right now, people are considering not buying a new car. Not going out to dinner. Not turning the money over. Bad for the economy, which Trump is doing. He is stopping the turnover of money.
It’s up to you to stop voting for someone like people who claims that Trump was put on Earth to “save the world,” and who supports Trump over his constituents (Fine doesn’t even live in our district). Let your reps know that this is unacceptable. If you are good with this, then you are complicit with whatever happens to your country, and all of us. Your woke fears will mean little when you are sitting home with no income.
Robjr says
Knucklehead’s new bright shiny object is the word tariff.
What happened to the cheaper, better healthcare that was ready to be delivered over 5 years ago?
And where are all the new manufacturing jobs that him and chicken man pence were supposed to
deliver?
His uneducated followers have the attention span of a new born kitten and have not uttered a word about him delivering on all of his banter and bluster.
Sherry says
And, putting taxes on everything we import is going to lower prices. . . really? Put down that statement from your rapidly shrinking retirement hummingbird nest egg. trump, the guy who declared bankruptcy 3 times, won. . . get over it, right? Give trump your entire life savings to handle. What could possibly go wrong? Cripple the Congress so they cannot do anything about it.
Maga, are you tired of winning yet?
Mod says
How many times did Trump declare bankruptcy
Well now he can bankrupt us all
Covid killed one million….70,000.00 here in Florida
What happened to their pay in for social security….dont tell me there’s no money..how many people pay in and never collect.
How many will die this time around…
How many will lose their homes, jobs,healthcare.
If you don’t learn from history…it will repeat itself
So her we go again
Hold on ..its going to be a bumpy ride.
Ray W, says
On July 21, 2008, the Tax Foundation published a short essay, re: The McKinley Tariffs that had been passed by Congress and signed into law in October 1890, roughly four weeks before congressional elections took place in November 1990.
America already had a long history with tariffs, as they provided from the founding a significant majority of the national revenue. The McKinley tariffs raised the tariff rate on most imported goods from just under an average rate of 40% to just under an average rate of 50%. Some goods were more heavily taxed, but others were not taxed at all.
Here is an excerpt from an October 21, 1890, New York Times article:
“UP GO THE PRICES NOW; HOW THE M KINLEY TARIFF TAXES THE NECESSARIES OF LIFE. MERCHANTS ARE MARKING UP ALMOST EVERYTHING THAT MEN WEAR, EAT, OR KEEP HOUSE WITH.
“Subjoined will be found a large amount of information, easily comprehensible, as to the practical working of the McKinley tariff, all of it answering to the questions whether the tariff imposes a tax upon American consumers and whether greater burdens are put upon the people of this country by the new tariff law than they were bearing previous to its going into effect. …
“WHO PAYS THE TARIFF TAXES?
“The Republican campaign orators and pamphleteers say that the various import duties levied by Congress are paid by the foreigners who send goods to America, and they deny point blank that the price of any article which may be called a necessary expense will be increased to Americans by the operation of the new tariff law. Fortunately for those who believe in tariff reforms, the question as to who pays the tariff taxes, and likewise the pleas which are made in answer to this question by the partisan defenders of the new law, may be referred to the arbitrament of incontestable facts. It is no longer necessary to meet theories with theories. Let the facts, which are multiplying every day, tell who it is that pays the onerous tariff taxes. They will answer that the American people pay these taxes and that the burden of them rests most heavily upon the poor, inasmuch as there are very few of the necessities of life the prices of which are not increasing on account of the McKinley tariff. …”
Make of this what you will.
Me? The national debate went on for another two decades. Republicans favored higher tariff rates. Democrats favored lower tariff rates. Neither party could completely abandon tariffs, as tariffs duties comprised most of the day’s federal revenue. The issue was settled, in part, when the income tax act was passed in 1913, thereby doing away with some of the necessity for tariffs.
The Republican Party lost control of Congress in November 1890, when nearly half of the sitting Republican congressmen lost their seats. In 1892, the Republicans lost the presidency. Was the loss due to increased tariffs? With Democratic control of the House, the Senate and the presidency, a tariff act passed in 1894 reducing tariff rates.
More on the subject of tariffs from the British perspective in due time.
Ray W, says
In February 1902, Winston Churchill, elected by the constituency of Oldham, took his seat in the British House of Commons as a member of the Tory Party, commonly known as the Conservative Party. On May 31, 1904, Churchill crossed the aisle and sat with the Liberal Party.
The question of why he crossed remains pertinent today.
The Conservative Party’s Prime Minister, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, initially appointed to office by the King in June 1895, headed a coalition of Conservatives and a splinter group of Liberal MPs known as Liberal Unionists.
Prime Minister Gascoyne-Cecil controlled the House of Commons until July 1902, at which time Conservative Arthur Balfour gained the position. He served until December 1905, when the Liberal Party swept the Conservative-Liberal Unionists out of office some 19 months after Churchill crossed the aisle.
As background, for nearly 50 years, the Conservative Party in Great Britain had adhered to a policy of Free Trade. Protectionism in the form of tariffs was anathema to the Conservative Party platform. Churchill had campaigned for office as a free trader. He took his seat on the Conservative side of the aisle as a free trader.
Some nine weeks after Churchill had seated himself as a Conservative free trader, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, introduced, as part of the upcoming year’s budget, new taxes on imported corn and wheat, as well as on meal and flour. Hicks-Beach denied that the tax was a precursor to a broader “protectionist” policy; it was, he said, needed to raise money to pay for the costs of the Boer War.
In 1902, the projected budget deficit was 27 million pounds Sterling, with an additional 18 million pounds to be set aside to meet emergency war needs, yielding a total deficit of 45 million pounds Sterling. Internal memoranda sent by Hicks-Beach to the government showed that overall government spending had risen 40% since the government had been formed in 1895, and that direct taxation had reached its limit. It was either raise income taxes or increase indirect taxes, claimed the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Tariffs are one form of indirect taxes. But even then, a tax on imports was not always defined as a tariff.
This was the difficult choice! The war, raging in South Africa for several years, had driven up expenditures and the government was loathe to raise direct taxes on income. The government could tax imports of meat or of petroleum or of wheat or corn. It chose both wheat and corn.
At the time, there existed a small militant protectionist wing of the Conservative Party, led by the ardent protectionist, Sir Howard Vincent, who immediately cheer from his seat on the Conservative side of the aisle in the House of Commons the announcement of the new wheat and corn taxes.
Churchill immediately rose to denounce the militant protectionists within his own Conservative party:
“And so it comes to this: here is the corner into which we are being driven. After the war is over we shall have to meet increased demands for ordinary expenditure, with a revenue which will be less than the present revenue by the revival of the Sinking Fund and the reduction of the income tax; and we shall have to do this without the patriotic stimulus due to the war, and perhaps without the prosperous conditions of the present time. The result in plain and evident. The basis of taxation will have to be enlarged – further enlarged – and it is just as well to face the fact that further expenditure means the serious taxation of bread and meat and other necessaries in the food of the people. And that Sir – I say – is going to raise two gigantic issues. First of all, I am persuaded that it will raise the whole question of fair trade. Taxation, imposed no doubt sincerely to begin with solely for revenue purposes, which under the influence of the hon and gallant member for Sheffield [Sir Howard Vincent] – not less gallant in the field of economics than on the field of war – assume a protective character. For why, it will be said, should we not kill three birds with one stone – collect our revenue, support British industries, and consolidate the Empire?
“I wonder, Sir, what will happen in this country if the fair trade issue is boldly raised by some responsible person of eminence and authority. We shall find ourselves once again on an old battlefield. Around will be the broken weapons, the grass-grown trenches and neglected graves – reviving former memories – and party bitterness, such as this generation has not known. How is it going to split existing political organizations – now so artificially serene? These are the questions of the future; but, Sir, when I think of this budget, I would say, of the near future, and when they arise they will have to be answered, by timid men as well as by bold men. …”
Make of this what you will.
Me?
More to come on the century-old British side of this issue. But it seems important to me to understand that the imposition of a tax on a class of product, in this case, wheat and corn, does not automatically mean a protectionist form of tariffs.
As an aside, it is clear from Churchill’s impromptu speech that he considered Sir Howard Vincent an uneducated gullible fool. But how was it that Churchill, a two-month member of the House of Commons, might be so assertive?
From his papers that survive him, and from the books in his library, it is clear that Churchill had set out as a late teen to read each of the Annual Registers that have been produced by the British government dating from the 18th century. Each Annual Register contains verbatim the many arguments raised in the House of Commons on every issue debated each year.
From Churchill’s letters to him mother dating from his time as a subaltern serving in India, he asked her to find Annual Registers from London booksellers and send them to him. He already had access to a number of such registers, as many of them were contained in his father’s library.
Churchill would learn of an issue and write his own thoughts on the issue in the margins, before he read the transcripts of the debates. He would then write whether the debates had changed his mind on the issue and why.
There is a form of reasoning completely unknown to many FlaglerLive commenters. It was the three forms of reasoning developed during the Scottish Enlightenment that were taught to our founding fathers during their years of university age. In academia, the decades surrounding our Revolution are known as the Age of Reason.
Churchill came from a family that adhered to these three forms of reason. He attended schools that taught the three forms of reason. He had internalized many of the crucial debates that had consumed Parliament for decades, if not centuries, long before he was elected to Parliament. He had already internalized many of the arguments, pro and con, arising from free trade and protectionism, perhaps even as early as during his late teenage years.
FlaglerLive readers get to read comments by people who can think but cannot reason. Some of them claim that our judges need to seek vengeance in sentencing. All “violent criminals” need to go to trial and serve the maximum sentence possible, if convicted, the more gullibly stupid commenters say. Judges should never accept pleas in such cases.
The main theme of my commenting for the past four years has been to oppose the vengeful among us, as the vengeful among us are far more dangerous to us all than many who are accused of committing crimes.
The gullibly stupid among us who read an article in which it is recounted that the prosecution dropped the most violent of charges against a defendant and sought a 15-year prison sentence on a much less violent offense just can’t understand the obvious.
The State is the party that came to the judge and asked the judge to accept a plea to a lesser charge. The State is the party that dropped the more serious charges against the defendant. The State is the party that explained to the court its reasons for doing so.
Those who purvey their own gullible stupidity to all FlaglerLive readers by blaming the judge for the State’s actions simply don’t get it.
A person is innocent until proved guilty. No judge can ever forget that. No judge in his or her right mind would prejudge a case before trial or plea. No judge sentences any defendant until both parties agree to a stipulation of facts on which a judge can rely when imposing said sentence. Were any judge to read a complaint affidavit and then force a defendant to trial based on the facts in that affidavit, prior to both parties agreeing to the truth of those facts, would be the commission of an unethical judicial act. Yes, a judge can reject a plea offer, based on facts that are stipulated as true by both parties, but that is not the same as forcing a defendant to trial based on a disputed probable cause affidavit.
Ray W, says
Churchill was just 27 when his first addressed the House of Commons on the issue of free trade.
A week after his free trade address, Churchill dined with a number of like-minded Conservative free traders. They invited to dinner a leading Conservative MP, Joseph Chamberlain (father of Neville). After dining, Chamberlain said to the group, known informally as the “Hooligans”:
“You young gentlemen have entertained me royally, and in return I will give you a priceless secret. Tariffs! There are the politics of the future, and of the near future. Study them closely and make yourselves masters of them, and you will not regret your hospitality to me.”
Make of this what you will.
Me?
Wise words from more than a century ago. I do not claim to have mastered tariffs. At best, I am a curious student. Yet, the political issue of tariffs remains.
More to come.
Ray W, says
With Churchill’s initial free trade response to the “Corn Tax” taking place on April 12, 1902, things began to snowball.
On May 12, 1902, Canadian Opposition Leader Robert Borden proposed a House resolution favoring the establishment of reciprocal tariff “preferences” within the Empire. Sir Wilfred Laurier, the Canadian Liberal Prime Minister, agreed, saying that the English corn tax was a “step … which would make it possible to obtain preference for Canadian goods.”
The next day, May 13, 1902, the English MP, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, referred to the Canadian utterance, saying that the corn tax was just the first step in a series of steps towards a system of preferential tariffs.
A Colonial Conference had already been scheduled in London from June 30 to August 11, 1902.
At the conference, Canada’s Prime Minister sought to use the corn tax as a lever for the case of Imperial Preference, i.e., protectionism. The issue had ballooned past the limits of a simply corn tax.
On July 11, 1902, England’s Conservative-Liberal Unionist Prime Minister resigned. The King appointed Arthur James Balfour Prime Minister.
A week later, Churchill wrote to J. Travis-Clegg, the Chairman of his constituency’s Conservative Tory party:
“I hope to have an opportunity when I come before my constituents at the General Meeting [in October] … of dealing with another formidable question towards which the increase of expenditure is steadily drawing us – the question of what is called Fair Trade. Time is, I think, coming near when men will have to make up their minds on this great issue, to formulate their opinions, and set them forth without hesitation or doubt.”
Make of this what you will.
Me?
More to come. But a Prime Minister had resigned his position, and a political maelstrom of tariffs and exemptions beckoned.
Pogo says
@Ray W
What, IYO, would Mr. Churchill think and say about BREXIT?
Anyway, all your writing about Mr. Churchill is wonderful. Thank you, sir.
FWIW, humbly
https://www.google.com/search?q=kipling+recessional
Ray W, says
On November 14, 1902, Churchill responded to a letter from one of his Oldham constituents:
“I have never described myself as an ‘ardent Free Trader’ but as a ‘sober admirer of Free Trade principles’ which is not quite the same thing. … As to the question of a ‘protected Empire,’ I could not pretend to put any arguments at length before you but it would seem to me a fantastic policy to endeavour to shut the British Empire up in a ringed fence. It is very large, and there are a good many things which can be produced in it, but the world is larger & produces some better things than can be found in the British Empire. Why should we deny ourselves the good and varied merchandise which the traffic of the world offers, more especially since the more we trade with others, the more they must trade with us; for it is quite clear that we give them something else back for everything they give to us. Our planet is not a very big one compared with the other celestial bodies, and I see no particular reason why we should endeavour to make inside our planet a smaller planet called the British Empire, cut off by impassable space from everything else. The idea does not attract me as an idea, because, although it may be worth while as circumstances arise, to make commercial treaties in special cases, either with our Colonies or with foreign countries, I for one, should scrutinize these projects very carefully. …”
On November 19, 1902, Prime Minister Balfour informed the King that his Cabinet had resolved “that, as presently advised, they would maintain the corn tax, but that a preferential remission of it should be made in favor of the British Empire.”
Make of this what you will.
Me?
What was once a simple tax imposed on all imported corn and wheat and meal and flour to meet a fiscal shortfall caused by the Boer War was filtering down into the constituency of a Conservative stronghold as a much more comprehensive set of ideas. And the Colonies were insisting that each be exempted from the tax.
What was once anathema to Conservative thought, that of protectionism, was becoming more and more palatable to the Conservative man in the street.
It had been seven months since the 1902 Budget Day announcement of the corn tax.
Ray W, says
On May 15, 1903, John Chamberlain, a leading Conservative MP, publicly declared to his Birmingham constituency the new Conservative policy of Tariff Reform and Imperial Preference:
“The people of this Empire have two alternatives before them. They may maintain if they like is all its severity the interpretation – in my mind an entirely artificial and wrong interpretation – which has been placed on the doctrines of Free Trade by a small remnant of Little Englanders, of the Manchester school, who now profess to be the sole repositories of the doctrines of Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright. They may maintain that policy in all its severity, though it is repudiated by every other nation and by all your own Colonies. In that case, they will be absolutely precluded either from giving any kind of Preference or favour to any of their Colonies abroad, or even protecting their Colonies abroad when they offer to favour us. That is the first alternative. The second alternative is that we should insist that we will not be bound by any purely technical definition of Free Trade, that, while we seek as one chief object free interchange of trade, between ourselves and all the nations of the world, we will, nevertheless, recover our freedom, resume that power of negotiation and, if necessary, retaliation whenever our own interests or our relations between our colonies and ourselves are threatened by other people.”
Make of this what you will.
Me?
In a short thirteen months, official Conservative economic policy had receded from a 50-year adherence to Free Trade principles and embraced the idea of widespread economic retaliation whenever a perceived foreign threat arose, real or not.
The idea was now Great Britain First.
Ray W, says
Hello Pogo.
Churchill long argued for some form of European Union, thinking it best for Great Britain. Free movement, free trade, all was promised by such a union. Churchill understood that anyone can find fault with any trade agreement, if the goal is to find fault. If the goal is to find gain and wealth, which is what he thought free trade brought to nations bound together by agreement, he was all for it.
Ray W, says
On May 21, 1903, Churchill addressed a gathering at Hoxton:
“Mr. Chamberlain is hardly the man to have made such a declaration unless he had behind it a very carefully-thought-out scheme in principle and in detail which he was prepared at the proper time to launch and to support, not only by facts and figures, but by those moral and sentimental arguments which are always needed to start the great movements of an enlightened people. I think he will need all his weighty arguments, all his eloquence, and his unexampled dialectical skill, and all his reputation and authority if he is to persuade the British people to abandon that system of free trade and cheap food under which they have thriven so long and have advanced from the depth of woe and poverty to the first position among the nations of the world.
“Do not let us lose our sense of political proportion. The policy which the Unionist Party ought to pursue must be a policy of Imperialism, but not of one-sided Imperialism. It must not be a policy which looks only abroad or only at home. While we cherish the loyalty, the help, and the comradeship of our colonies we must be careful not to disregard the urgent needs of our great population at home or do anything to injure that elaborate machinery by which the great wealth of England is produced. The far-seeing eye of Lord Beaconsfield ranged widely across the waters to the most distant colonies and possessions of the Crown, but at the same time he was able to set first and foremost in his mind the virtue and prosperity of the people of Great Britain. It will be by following his example as closely as possible in that respect that we shall best serve the interests of the Unionist Party and the country in which we are so proud to live.”
Make of this what you will.
Me?
Churchill is setting out the moral argument for free trade. He knows a split in the Unionist Party is coming. To Churchill, the very wealth of the nation is at stake.
Ray W, says
Step-by-step, Churchill is severing himself from what he considers the no-longer Conservative Party; it may be many things but Free Trade is the essence of the part. Abandon that and what else is there?
He next writes to his Prime Minister.
“25 May 1903
“Most Private
“Dear Mr. Balfour,
“You have shown me so much kindness in the past that I am encouraged to write to you frankly now about Mr. Chamberlain’s recent statements; & indeed the matter seems to me so important that it is my duty to do so.
“At Birmingham he advocated Preferential Tariffs with the Colonies; in his letter of Monday to a Mr Loveday he revealed plain Protectionist intentions; & in the House on Friday last he showed himself prepared to use Old Age Pensions as a lever to attain these ends. Now I see it stated by Mr Bonar Law that you are agreed with him in all this.
“I earnestly hope this is not true & that you have not taken an irrevocable decision. Hence this letter.
“I am utterly opposed to anything which will alter the Free Trade character of this country; & I consider such an issue superior in importance to any other now before us. Preferential Tariffs, even in respect of articles wh we are bound to tax for revenue purposes, are dangerous & objectionable. But of course it is quite impossible to stop there and I am persuaded that once this policy is begun it must lead to the establishment of a complete Protective system, involving commercial disaster, & the Americanization of English politics. I do not now attempt to argue all this. But I submit these two points to you.
“1. From a national point of view there is no case for a fiscal resolution: not in the Trade Returns, nor Income Tax receipts, nor in a colonial demand, nor in a popular movement.
“2. From a party point of view: the government is probably less unpopular than any which has ruled 8 years in England. Their record – army & expenditure apart – will make a fine page in history. They have no reason to dread an appeal to the constituencies; & even if a general election should result in a transference of power, the conservative party would be in a strong minority quite able to protect those causes & institutions which they cherish. In five years or six years a healthy operation of opinion would recall them once more to power. Why is it necessary to play such desperate stakes?
“I feel perhaps that I may have sometimes been the cause of embarrassment to the government. It is difficult to write about such things because of obvious rejoinders, but I should like to tell you that an attempt on your part to preserve Free Trade policy & character of the Tory party would command my absolute loyalty. I would even swallow six army corps — if it would make any difference. & sink all minor differences. But if on the other hand you have made up your mind & there is no going back, I must reconsider my position in politics. Please do not consider this letter disrespectful or anything but a statement of fact. I should be very sorry to cause you annoyance of any kind. But after all you ought to know how seriously some of us regard this great question.”
Make of this what you will.
Me?
Churchill openly tells his party chief and his Prime Minister that Free Trade is his dealbreaker. In his mind, it is nation first, party second. And he claims that he is not alone in this position.
Ray W, says
On May 28, 1903, Churchill rebuked Tory leadership in the House of Commons:
“It is an economic absurdity to say that Protection means a greater development of wealth; and to say that it means a fairer distribution of wealth is a ‘downright lie.’
“… This idea means a change, not only in historic English parties, but in the conditions of our public life. The old Conservative Party, with its religious convictions and constitutional principles, will disappear, and a new party will arise, rich, materialist, and secular, whose opinions will turn on tariffs and who will cause the lobbies to be crowded with the touts of the protected industries. What is the cause of this change? Never was the wealth of the country greater, or the trade returns higher, or the loyalty of the Colonies more pronounced. Is it that we are tired of the good old days?”
Also on May 29th, Churchill wrote to the leader of the Liberal Party, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman:
“I am anxious about your amendment to the Finance Bill, which seems to me to court a decision of first importance upon a false issue. After all we like the Finance Bill, and refusing to proceed with it will unite the whole Conservative party; protectionists who will be glad to triumph over you; free traders who are bound to support Ritchie and the repeal of the corn tax. The result can only be a disastrous division and an immense victory for Chamberlain. This is Sir Michael Hicks-Beach’s opinion as well as that of my friends.
“Is it not possible for the discussion, for which we are all anxious, to be raised in some other way? You are quite justified in asking the Government to put down a resolution, or in moving a vote of want of confidence on the ground that their public utterances conflict with their declared fiscal policy – and Mr Balfour would be bound to give full opportunity. But let us at any rate have a discussion which can be terminated by a division on a fair issue.
“You will of course understand that the position of those Conservatives who are unalterably opposed to the impending fiscal change is one of great difficulty and danger; and I earnestly hope you will consider us in the course you take.”
Make of this what you will.
Me?
Churchill presents as a politician unwilling as yet to sever the lifelong ties binding him to what he has come to accept as the no-longer Conservative party, but he knows the die is set and that he is not long for the party.
Ray W, says
On July 13, 1903, Churchill helped in the formation of the Free Food League. Within a short time, 60 Unionist members of the House of Commons had joined. In response, a rival Tariff Reform League formed, eventually garnering some 30 Unionist members of the House of Commons.
The writing was all but on the wall.
On July 16, 1903, Churchill wrote to the Editor of The Times:
“… While Mr Balfour silences his followers in the House of Commons Mr Chamberlain is busy with their constituencies. Within the last few days circulars have been sent to local Conservative agents inviting them, irrespective of the opinions of their members, to disseminate protectionist propaganda. Leaflets are to be supplied gratis. They are to report what free trade arguments are producing an ‘effect,’ so that ‘if necessary’ leaflets can be ‘specially prepared’ to answer them. The cost of ‘house-to-house distribution’ is, where desired, to be defrayed. These circulars emanate from a Mr Vince, of Birmingham, whose name is already familiar to us in connexion with Mr Chamberlain’s correspondence, and who has long been one of his most trusted agents. But still we must be loyal to the policy of impartial inquiry and the open mind. …”
Make of this what you will.
Me?
When your party asks local party agents to disseminate leaflets in opposition to the member’s political positions, it seems like, using today’s vernacular, the member is about to be primaried.
Ray W, says
On December 23, 1903, the General Purposes Committee of the Oldham Conservative Registration Association passed a resolution:
“That this meeting intimates to Mr. Winston S. Churchill, MP, that he has forfeited their confidence in him as Unionist member for Oldham, and in the event of an election taking place he must no longer rely on the Conservative Organisation being used on his behalf.”
On January 8, 1904, the General Elective Committee of the Oldham Association carried the December resolution, but it did not ask Churchill to resign his position.
On March 29, 1904, when Churchill rose to address the House of Commons, the leadership of the Tory Party, along with many back-benchers rose and walked out of the House chamber.
On May 31, 1904, Churchill crossed the aisle to sit with members of the Liberal Party.
In the next general election, held in 1906, the Tory Party suffered a disastrous defeat at the polls, not returning to power until 1922.
Make of this what you will.
Me?
For want of a repeal of an ill-advised corn tax on food imports, a career was lost and then won again.
But it wasn’t Churchill who had changed. His Oldham constituency knew exactly what he was when they elected him. The Oldham political organization was the institution that had changed.
The Conservative Party knew exactly what Churchill stood for when they accepted him into Parliament as the member from Oldham. But it wasn’t Churchill who had changed; it was the Tory Party that had changed.
The Tory Party, by abandoning its roots, destroyed itself by engaging in magical thinking.
To paraphrase Wittgenstein, whose seminal work wasn’t published until 1921, one of the most difficult things in life is to not fool oneself.
Gullibility inheres in us all. It is only by engaging in the three forms of reason through the exercise of intellectual rigor, as taught to our founding fathers, and as taught to Winston Churchill, that we might free ourselves from gullibility.
Skibum says
Maybe this comment will be too intense, too deep for any maga mush brain to contemplate, but here goes anyway… if drumph’s tariffs would have no negative financial impact on Americans as drumph has insisted repeatedly, NO price increases for any of us, no hit on our economy only negative impacts on the foreign countries where tariffs are imposed, they tell me why, oh why has OUR own U.S. stock market crashed lower than it has been since the start of the pandemic??? It has only been a short two days since the draconian tariffs were ordered. They haven’t even really taken affect yet because it takes time for those foreign goods to make their way here to the U.S. But our nation is already reeling from drumph’s stroke of the pen… because he is NO business success story, he knows he has lied to all of us, and he couldn’t care less how much hurt his actions place on our economy, our investments, our households… because none of those has any real impact on his gaudy, golden kitsch ensconced and pampered lifestyle. He thinks what he is doing will help HIM, and he never has cared one iota what his actions cause for the rest of civilization.
don miller says
The country that united to produce 300,000 planes, 30 aircraft carriers in WW2, defended China and rebuilt Europe and Japan has had its manufacturing capability stripped away by the world it saved and our fake allies. They are really only our allies when they need saving. And right now we are saving their Suez canal. Our jobs got whacked two ways. They undercut their own peoples’ quality of life with cheap wages. They can’t afford 3 cars to a family, their own house and live stacked on each other in crumbling apartments. Then they tariffed us so that we can’t sell to them and our people not to have good jobs, our wage growth is stagnant and we become socialists depending on gov. Trump knows we can’t build new factories overnight so what is he up to? He wants to get them to way lower tariffs so we can create new demand for manufacturing jobs here. That will give us time to build those factories and until we do the ones we have can operate 24/7 to satisfy the increasing demand. Now we can stop being dependent on foreigners, who don’t like us to begin with, for steel for our ships. His bet is they will cave first and lower to equally low or zero tariffs because they need to sell to our market or they fall. Their bet is we will fold first because we panic over 401Ks (they don’t even have ones like ours) and the Dems with their TDS desire for power will whip up more TDS, cause more division and we will cave because of it and we will be right back where we were with no manufacturing independence. and low paying phone answering jobs living in public housing apartments.. If we stood united to turn the one way tariffs from our fake friends around this would over sooner. The Dems are either to dumb or too greedy for power to go along to build an independent America. Trump going golfing with LIV is him just him showing he won’t be coerced and has clarity about the plan