Democracy Is Us

This is one of the best explanations I’ve seen on tariffs, by my economics colleague Tim Salmon. Trump claims his tariffs will do two things: (1) raise $6 trillion paid by other countries, and (2) spark a manufacturing boom and create high-paying jobs. But both outcomes can’t happen. If we collect $6 trillion, it’s because we keep buying foreign goods—no manufacturing revival. If we revive manufacturing and stop buying imports, we don’t get the $6 trillion. Could there still be a manufacturing boom with job growth? No and no. The idea that we “don’t manufacture anymore” is false—U.S. manufacturing is at record highs. But jobs are down because automation took them, not Mexico or China. More manufacturing won’t mean more jobs—it’ll mean more robots working overtime. Even if you wanted to build a factory now, you’d hit problems. All the components are now tariffed, making it more expensive than before. Your inputs are more expensive too, and you’d struggle to hire: we’re near full employment, and immigration is being cut. So what about that $6 trillion? Everyone knows tariffs are paid by importers—us. Could foreign countries bear some of that cost? In theory, yes—if we had cheaper alternatives. Say Canadian steel is tariffed and we can buy cheaper Chinese steel, Canada might lower its prices to stay competitive. In that case, Canada absorbs some of the tariff burden. But Trump tariffed everyone. No alternatives. So we pay. A lot more, for a lot less. Can’t we just buy American steel? We don’t produce enough. And with demand up and competition reduced, U.S. producers will raise prices. Again: we pay more, get less, and don’t create jobs. There’s no coherent argument for this policy. If you’re thinking “give the guy a chance,” know this: the economics are clear and the historical record is long. Why is Trump doing this? I can’t say. But it fits a pattern: punishing those he thinks wronged him—law firms, universities, states, and now countries. This is not economic policy. It’s a protection racket. If you can make a case for how this could achieve its stated goals, I’d love to hear it. So far, no one in the administration has. If you’re wondering about fairness—“don’t other countries tariff us?”—that’s a fair question, but it’s complex and deserves its own post. (Short version: the U.S. has spent decades lowering global barriers to trade and shaping rules in our favor. That’s part of why other countries resent us.) Finally, this post isn’t about party politics. It’s just math. Republicans long opposed tariffs; Democrats started shifting under Clinton. Before Trump, it was largely GOP orthodoxy to oppose this kind of policy. It’s not ideological—it’s economic fact. We need competence in policymaking. If this trade war escalates, it could rival the 2007 collapse in global damage. The tragedy? It’s preventable. Republicans: please rein him in. The world needs you.

Reclaiming Democracy Through a Coordinated “Flood the Zone” Strategy I see parallels between the relentless tide of authoritarian measures and the need for an equally relentless counteroffensive. When those in power weaponize chaos—rolling out edicts and executive orders faster than communities can respond—the antidote lies in matching their speed with well-coordinated pressure from all corners of civil society. We must flood the public sphere with verifiable data, purposeful storytelling, and grassroots mobilization that underscores our commitment to equity, constitutional rights, and transparent governance. This means seeding every available venue—social media, town halls, union halls, campus forums, and local airwaves—with fact-based, accessible information that cuts through the disinformation haze. At the same time, public interest legal teams can mobilize swiftly, filing targeted lawsuits and injunctions to stall or repeal the most egregious oversteps. By acting in unison, we effectively transform the drip of scattered dissent into a surging wave of unified resistance, preventing any single policy from quietly slipping through the cracks. However, a strong offense in the media and courts must be complemented by an equally robust effort in legislative arenas. State and local governments can serve as critical bulwarks against federal overreach, passing proactive measures that protect civil liberties and safeguard vital social programs under threat. Municipalities can enact policies promoting fair housing, sustainable energy, and DEI initiatives—even if the federal administration tries to strip these protections at the national level. Coordinated alliances among city councils, state legislatures, and national activist networks amplify the voices of millions, making it far more difficult for an administration to dismiss or dismantle local gains. By saturating legislative channels with bills, proposals, and resolutions that reaffirm foundational American values, we create powerful resistance within a civil ecosystem where attempts to erode democracy are continually met with friction, transparency, and public scrutiny. Finally, no resistance can succeed without extensive, relentless grassroots engagement. Community organizers, faith leaders, educators, and labor unions must continue building local coalitions, holding teach-ins, and organizing peaceful protests that refuse to cede the public square to authoritarian rhetoric. This constant presence on the ground—knocking on doors, talking with neighbors, and showing up at every council meeting—generates the kind of widespread, sustained civic energy that no administration, no matter how aggressively it “floods the zone,” can easily stamp out. Let the drumbeat of grassroots democracy be so ceaseless and loud that each new executive overreach is met with an immediate, collective chorus of “Not on our watch.”