Rhetoric splits those who support globalism from those who favor tariffs. Katie Pavlich of the Ingraham Angle mentioned something of relevance to the debate: there could be a better intermediate between the extremes of protectionism and trade treaties. Such a thing exists, but very few speak of it anymore.
Tariffs were and are posited as a counter-balance to labor being outsourced. They are the equivalent of a business which sells both unique and commonplace products but never discounts its prices. Nations are less interested in placing tariffs on commonplace commodities and more seek to protect the assets which are unique to their region, continent, or national area. When they place tariffs on these, retaliatory tariffs then hit commonplace commodities, which are also present domestically for all parties. While this is survivable, GDP can take a hit if unique assets do not sell.
Globalism inverts a sensible response to this difficult situation. We export much of what we should be using and import goods we already have native to us. Treaties serve as international regulations which lead to trade deficits and raise costs for all parties. Trade surpluses are devastating, but trade deficits are similarly destructive. These are like having your business sell all its unique and commonplace goods at a huge sale for the whole year round. Our leaders agitate for globalism, or openness to trade on the world stage, but these treaties provide nothing other than prioritization between nations wherein corporate interests overtake those of not just the native-born worker, but also common sense laissez-faire economics.
To understand our alternative to globalism and tariffs, we must look at the motivations of our leaders. Politicians sell this as a way of addressing domestic labor shortages but no such shortages exist. Work is not quite synonymous with labor. Labor is any able-bodied or able-minded individual for white-collar and blue-collar jobs alike. We face a direly vast skill gap. We train our citizens for white-collar roles and forego training for blue-collar work. Once the white collar jobs are full, we look outside of our borders to fulfill our need for blue-collar labor. This creates disparity, and this must be stressed not for reasons of class warfare but simple statistics. This means that we lack work, but not labor. We have plenty of labor, but a gap in skills which we refuse to solve.
In this way, we see that the tariff wars are in fact about our ongoing demographic problem. Robotics will naturally replace workers as minimum wages rise. Laws in favor of illegal aliens will cause them to replace overpriced native-born employment and then not only demand an alleged “right” to cohabitate, but to overwrite our whole sociocultural and ethnic fabric while refusing to pay taxes for the social benefits they consume at higher rates than the native-born. In turn they will demand their own minimum wage, then pegged to an even higher dollar.
It is no secret that politicians seek to diversify the electorate in order to gain votes on the Left. It is also no secret that these same politicians are the ones who push for “entitlement” programs which attract parasitic aliens in the first place. Politicians make compromises, but while working between the parties gets touted as somehow better for the country, the needs of middle America are portrayed as not just bad for the country but morally bad. This silences debate on whether we should continue the path of demographic decline.
As with DACA, the will of government deviates strongly from what most people seem to want. DC knows it cannot maintain power so long as things could become solved. It knows there needs to be an enemy to win campaigns. Its enemies as a “moderate” are the so-called fringes. The more they bring in diversity, the more zoot-suit riot scenarios occur and they will blameshift to phony “racism,” whence native-borns become further and further sick and tired of such nonsense. This increases their power because virtue-signalers think alike; it’s a hormone of egotism which scratches its own back. They are able to guise their tyranny through socialism by enshrouding it in a cloak of faux “humanitarian” utopia. But utopia cannot exist and any attempt at this idealistic path results in strict dystopia of the worst case example.
Idealism is a necessary counter-balance to the potential inflexibility of pragmatism. With collectivized hyperindividualism being the Machiavellian tactic of those seeking not to embrace social order based on natural selection through ethnonativism, hyperidealism is an enemy of the worst type to pragmatism. As we attempt to paint absence of zero-sum games at the global macroeconomic sphere, we are indeed being bitten by zero-sum pitfalls. Globalization does not need be zero-sum in the sense of inferior versus superior. However, superiorities and inferiorities do still exist. Aristotle once said the greatest inequality of all is trying to make unequal things “equal.” Nations, societies, etc., are not equal. Perhaps we want equal liberties, but that power in the hands of a bad person is bad, so it can only exist when all are good and doggedly self-informing about the potential consequences of their actions.
Tariffs reduce liberty and make our economy more resemble Communism than the more organic free markets guided by traditionalism that made America great the first time. Nationality and heritage or ancestry and pride attached to it are not only lost but brainwashed into the sands of time deliberately by those who seek a borderless “solution” to erasing the nation-state out of existence. We are as any culture tied to our land. A nation-state can be rebuilt in its former glories. However, it is not only illogical, but impossible to rebuild when the population is demographically replaced through miscegenation. A government might fall into poor hands; incompetents or demagogues have ruined many governments. But a nation is not the government if we retain our identity as people. If we further go tumbling down the path of diversity and globalism, we will get the second civil war we have feared for a century and a half.
Tariffs do keep workers at our homefront, but they also risk squandering the very real opportunity we could be seizing to abolish the Export/Import Bank and exit NAFTA as we did TPP, rather than renegotiate. This is not a bad compromise, just as tariffs are not a bad moderate position that still represents our interests. However, watch for a botched implementation: DC likes to sink good policy by creating a strawman out of it and passing it into law, and when it fails they all throw up their hands and say, “we knew it!” and go back to the status quo ante. This was how tariffs were originally phased out approximately a century ago.
A jolting return to the old way will not only put additional workers out of work, but will ensure multiculturalists get their way by eventually implementing globalism at an accelerated pace. Egalitarianism is fed not by natural equivalency but by artificial “equality.” Its game is quotas, not skill. Protectionists oppose multiculturalism, rightfully. The saner approach opposes it on dual grounds: it violates capitalist principles by creating distortions in the labor market, and it destroys nations by replacing their people. In our state of oblivion, this is rarely stated. Truth is bigger than facts.
The influx of illegal aliens is the method by which our government seeks to achieve and consolidate its power. They know they must keep the masses uneducated if they are to survive. If they keep expanding their grabs, they know we will fight back. They also, however, know by feeding their invitees of foreign dumps onto our own land through excused acts of trespassing, mating becomes their social engineering weapon. After a decade has passed, whether through rape or indoctrination, there will be no trace of the founding group of Americans. Government by promising its checks will, too, fail because it will lack a high-performing group to milk for its dollars. Won’t they make the new hodge-podge race buckle too? Sure as this is Plato’s Republic.
However, such a scenario as this presumes we wish to even succumb to eradication. Turning apathy into motivated and constructive anger is how we turn our curse into a blessing. Optimism is mere idealism. Hope pushes anger not to the brink, but to thinking it is possible to fix current problems. This can balance against the destructive nature of anger, but if we hope against reality and odds, we act upon all the wrong things and all the wrong ways, defending a broken order which wishes to see us wiped from planet Earth, until the day it occurs with a smile on our face and treason as our legacy.