nrc.nl
McKinley's Trade Shift: A Contrast to Trump's Protectionism
US President William McKinley's death in 1901 followed a speech advocating for reciprocal trade agreements, a contrast to his earlier protectionist views and Donald Trump's selective admiration for his policies; Trump's own protectionist stance mirrors Herbert Hoover's policies during the Great Depression, prompting concerns of similar negative economic repercussions.
- How did domestic economic conditions and global trade dynamics influence McKinley's change in perspective regarding tariffs?
- McKinley's shift towards free trade, driven by the recognition of a saturated domestic market, contrasts sharply with Trump's protectionist policies. Trump's admiration for McKinley focuses solely on his protectionism, ignoring his later embrace of free trade. This selective historical interpretation supports Trump's own protectionist agenda.
- What were the economic consequences of McKinley's protectionist policies, and how do they compare to those of Trump's protectionist measures?
- Nobody benefits from trade wars," said William McKinley shortly before his assassination. His last speech advocated for reciprocal trade agreements, creating respect and lasting relationships. This marked a significant shift from his earlier protectionist stance, often overlooked by modern figures like Donald Trump, who selectively praises McKinley's protectionist policies.
- What are the potential long-term economic and geopolitical consequences of Trump's protectionist policies, given the historical precedents set by McKinley and Hoover?
- Trump's embrace of protectionism, mirroring Hoover's policies during the Great Depression, risks similar negative economic consequences. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, a product of Hoover's protectionism, exacerbated the Great Depression and triggered retaliatory tariffs globally. Trump's tariffs, despite claims of benefiting American workers, could similarly harm the US and global economy.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the narrative around the negative consequences of protectionist policies, using examples like the Smoot-Hawley Act and highlighting the criticisms leveled against Trump's trade policies. The emphasis on these negative examples shapes the reader's perception of protectionism as inherently harmful, without giving equal weight to potential positive aspects or arguments in its defense. The headline, if there was one, would likely reinforce this negative framing.
Language Bias
The article uses loaded language in describing protectionist policies, such as referring to them as "rampant," "idiotic," and causing a "disaster." These words carry negative connotations and shape the reader's opinion. More neutral terms could include 'controversial,' 'high-tariff,' or 'debated.' The repeated use of terms like "protectionist" and "free trade" without detailed explanation also contributes to a biased presentation, as these concepts are complex and not easily categorized.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the protectionist policies of McKinley and Trump, and the negative consequences of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, but gives less attention to the arguments in favor of protectionism or the potential benefits of such policies in specific contexts. The article also omits discussion of alternative economic theories or policies that could address the issues of job losses and economic decline without resorting to protectionism. For example, it doesn't explore the role of technological advancements or shifts in global demand in job displacement.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between protectionism and free trade, implying that these are the only two options for economic policy. It overlooks the existence of more nuanced approaches and the possibility of finding a balance between protecting domestic industries and fostering international cooperation.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the negative impacts of protectionist trade policies, such as tariffs, on economic growth and employment. Policies like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and Trump's tariffs are cited as examples that led to decreased economic growth, reduced exports, and job losses. The comparison between McKinley's later support for free trade and Trump's protectionism highlights the potential negative consequences of protectionism on economic prosperity.