Power, even in the hands of an economic and military superpower, is still finite.
“So long as the common man can get a hearing, such elementary rules as not fighting all your enemies simultaneously are less likely to be violated.” — George Orwell on the strategic folly of Nazi Germany going to war against the Soviet Union and the United States before it had even subdued Britain. Orwell’s dictum is usually correct. But Donald Trump is pushing the envelope.
If you recall the George W. Bush presidency, one of the major arguments made by the Buchananite wing — now represented by Trump and JD Vance — was that Bush-era Republican foreign policy was fighting on too many foreign fronts simultaneously. Now, Trump is willing to do just that. The United States has the power to pick and win fights with China, Mexico, Canada, Panama, Denmark, and Colombia. But can we fight all of them at once?
That’s particularly a concern in choosing to open trade wars with China, Mexico, and Canada at the same time. Tariffs are taxes; like any tax on business, they are ultimately paid by American consumers. They also tend to trigger retaliatory tariffs and trade barriers that hurt American exports. Now, even as something of a doctrinaire free trader, I’m sympathetic to the notion that we ought to get tougher on trade with China, both because of systematic Chinese failures to reciprocate (in open markets, in respect for intellectual property, etc.) and for reasons of national security. We survived an initial, lower-grade trade war with China during the first Trump presidency, to the point that even Joe Biden didn’t undo the tariffs imposed by Trump at the time. We might be better off long-term if we reduce our dependence upon trade with China, which its government sees primarily as a political lever with which to control us, spy on us, and steal our technology. We could start by forcing the sale of TikTok, as Congress has already mandated.
But trade fights with China have costs — costs that can hit American consumers directly in terms of both the cost of living and the available supply of goods. Few if any issues were more important to Trump’s election than the rising cost of living under Biden and public perception that Trump could restore sound money and more affordability. One major problem with uncorking a trade fight with China simultaneously with one against Canada and Mexico — which happen to be America’s two largest trading partners — is that Americans hit with rising costs may not be able to distinguish the costs of the China battle from the costs of fighting Canada and Mexico.
Power, even in the hands of an economic and military superpower, is still finite. In a democracy, it depends heavily upon the pain threshold of the voters. It’s true that the resources taxed by a purely economic fight are different than those taxed by a shooting war, but the principle is the same. Yet, many of the people who made those critiques during the Bush years seem not to see the problem of hubris and overstretch this time around.
Trump’s tariff strategy might not end in disaster, if he’s able to set modest enough goals at the negotiating table to avoid a really extended high-tariff period on all fronts at once. Certainly, he’s been able to roll up some wins against the smaller fish in the pond. Colombia folded literally overnight. Panama backed down yesterday and abandoned its Belt and Road partnership with China. If that’s the end of things on that front, it’s another win. Marco Rubio, doing his best to play the good-cop side with his boss as the bad cop, worked on both deals and is now in talks with Mexico, reportedly resulting in a one-month cessation of the tariffs on our southern neighbor. Of course, we have more serious concerns on the Mexican side, given the vast human trafficking operation run by the Mexican cartels, who currently control about a third of the country and effectively dictate terms to Mexico’s government and leadership.
If things can be worked out with Canada in short order without a complete American capitulation, Trump’s strategy might yet succeed. But he’s now in an unenviable position: He has placed the fate of his presidency in the hands of political foes (such as Justin Trudeau and Claudia Sheinbaum) and outright national enemies (such as Xi Jinping). If the outcome is a long trade war on multiple major fronts at once, the life of the new Trump political coalition could be a very short one.