Bruna Frascolla
The fact that Trump reinstated the tariffs and transformed them into yet another instrument of the liberal world's sheriff, shows how the U.S. has failed to protect its intellectual heritage.
The second Trump administration is trying to be the government of tariffs. A more erudite Trumpist might argue that the early stages of United States history are intertwined with the history of tariffs; after all, the U.S. South was run by farmers who favored free trade, while the North defended tariffs to protect its nascent industry from English competition. Since the U.S. became a superpower because of the North and not because of the South, it's clear that the Lochner era (which preceded the 1929 crisis) and Reagan's neoliberal deregulation, conceived in partnership with Thatcher, are deviations from the path that led the U.S. to success. However, liberal propaganda, greatly aided by anti-communism, managed to portray free trade as essential to the very identity of the U.S.
Therefore, it is worth reflecting on the words of the economist Friedrich List (1789 - 1846), one of the greatest defenders of the "American system" or "national system of political economy," which administered tariffs to protect the domestic economy: "I would admonish the people of these U. S. who rely on the celebrated system of Smith, to take care not to die of a beau ideal. Indeed, sir, it would sound almost like sarcasm, if in after ages an historian should commemorate the decline of this country in the following terms: 'They were a great people, they were in every respect in the way to become the first people on earth, but they became weak and died - trusting in the infallibility of two books imported into the country; one from Scotland [Adam Smith], the other from France [Jean-Baptiste Say]; books, the general failure of which was shortly afterwards acknowledged by every individual.'" ( Outlines of American Political Economy, Letter 1)
First of all, what is striking in the 21st century is someone calling free trade, or economic liberalism, a utopia. This is due to the fact that economic liberalism is presented to the public as the ironclad laws of science that must be applied, under penalty of serious consequences. This strategy is nothing new: when Chesterton was alive, he already complained about this expedient. Both Malthusianism and social Darwinism present their tragic public policies as necessary. Of these two, social Darwinism has an inseparable relationship with economic liberalism.
Nevertheless, reading List, we note that Adam Smith and other defenders of free trade envision a world without wars, in which no one has to fear running out of supplies due to political issues. For example: in 1827, just 51 years after independence, American congressmen who were followers of Adam Smith "asserted quite seriously that it would be better to import gunpowder from England, if it could be bought cheaper there than manufactured here. I wonder why they did not propose to burn our men of war, because it would be better economy, to hire, in time of war, ships and sailors in England." (Letter 2). War is the least of it. Proponents of free trade envision a world in which there are no economic wars.
Next, we must consider that scientism, utopianism, and political liberalism go hand in hand. Let's see: with political liberalism, it is understood that faith is a subjective truth that should remain outside the public sphere. Nevertheless, common ground is necessary for citizens of different faiths to be able to live in society. Science appears in place of religion as the bearer of objective and universal knowledge. Thus, it is evident that science, by becoming the seat of so much power, ends up being instrumentalized and corrupted. Scientism is born, the belief in the capacity of science to determine all political and social issues.
Historically, scientism, utopianism, and secularism (which is an indispensable component of political liberalism) have gone hand in hand: there are precedents of Saint-Simonism, positivism, socialism, and communism. Thus, it makes perfect sense that a country that adheres to political liberalism ends up falling into scientism. The difference between liberal scientism and other forms of scientism is that in liberalism, the figure of the planner is not highlighted. Instead, there is a spontaneous harmony that only the liberal imbued with the scientific spirit can grasp, so that their criticisms are directed against those who interfere with the so-called natural order (imposing trade barriers, for example). While historical followers of scientism tend to be interventionists, clamoring for a technician to bring order to the chaos, liberal followers od scientism are anti-interventionists and argue that the things is always in perfect order until someone interferes.
Now, if science constitutes the common denominator in a political regime, it is of fundamental importance to create a public fund for science that prevents it from being co-opted by private agents. In List's work, we do not find this concern: on the contrary, he follows the American philosophy, already present in the Constitution, according to which Congress should protect the intellectual property of inventors. For List, this protection causes inventions to spread through industry, instead of being lost with the death of the inventor. This may be true, but the absence of a public knowledge policy has led to the privatization of knowledge, and the doctrine of free trade, which he criticized so much, has become practically an indisputable scientific truth.
The fact that Trump reinstated the tariffs and transformed them into yet another instrument of the liberal world's sheriff, without regard for the needs of the domestic economy, shows how the U.S. has failed to protect its intellectual heritage.