Date:
April 17, 2025
Author:
Iam Kerr
Aristotle once observed that “the last thing in execution is the first thing in intention.” In other words, when planning any course of action, we must begin with the end firmly in mind. That principle—simple, ancient, and wise—is especially relevant as we assess President Trump’s revived use of tariffs and trade policy in his second term.
The current political discourse is quick to draw sharp contrasts between the Biden and Trump administrations. Nowhere is this more evident than in economic and trade policy. President Biden was portrayed as a technocratic globalist, while President Trump is often cast as a blunt-force economic nationalist. But behind the differences in tone and tactics, a deeper truth emerges: both presidents have pursued the same strategic goals—and Trump continues that pursuit today.
🇺🇸 National Priorities That Transcend Politics
Strip away the partisan rhetoric, and you find a remarkably consistent set of objectives undergirding both Biden’s and Trump’s use of tariffs:
- National security through resilient supply chains.
- Restoring American manufacturing.
- Protecting U.S. workers.
- Economic sovereignty.
To ignore this alignment is to miss the forest for the trees.
🧰 The Consequences of Failed Approaches
Even though Americans have broadly agreed on these goals for decades, we’ve largely failed to achieve them. In fact, 16 of the last 20 years were governed by Democratic administrations, whose preferred methods—global engagement, multilateralism, and outsourcing—have not produced the desired results.
Instead, they’ve helped drive the nation into its current fiscal crisis:
- A $34 trillion national debt, growing at an unsustainable pace.
- Annual deficits now exceeding $2 trillion, even in peacetime.
- A Social Security Trust Fund on track to be depleted by 2031, triggering a 29% cut in benefits.
- Medicare expected to become insolvent shortly thereafter.
There’s a saying: same old methods, same old results. The United States cannot continue handling these existential issues with status quo thinking. We are risking national bankruptcy if we don’t change course.
🥊 Debunking the “No One Wins in a Trade War” Myth
One of the most frequently repeated statements by our allies—and especially by our adversaries—is that “no one wins in a trade war.” It’s a phrase designed to paralyze action and protect the current global imbalance.
But let’s be honest: that’s a ridiculous assertion.
When two boxers step into a ring, both land punches. Both endure pain. But when the bell rings, one is declared the winner. The pain was real—but so was the outcome.
Trade disputes are no different. There are short-term disruptions, yes. But to suggest that the U.S. should never engage in assertive trade policy because someone might get hurt is to accept a rigged game. The reality is that some countries have been winning far more than others, and the United States has been winning less and less.
This global economic arrangement is like Orwell’s Animal Farm, where the pigs originally proclaimed “all animals are equal,” only to later clarify, “but some are more equal than others.” That’s where we are today. The rhetoric of free and fair trade masks the reality: the system is tilted, and America is playing by rules that reward others at its own expense.
It is not selfish or unfair to change course. It is necessary.
🔧 Trump’s Style Is Not Biden’s — And That’s Okay
President Trump’s approach is undeniably more confrontational and broad-brushed. He’s comfortable issuing tariffs across wide swaths of goods, rattling allies as well as rivals. Critics deride it as reckless. But if we apply Aristotle’s principle, we must judge the method not in isolation, but in relation to the end it aims to achieve.
If the objective remains national strength, security, and prosperity—and it clearly does—then Trump’s method deserves to be weighed on those terms. One might argue that his style is disruptive not in spite of the goal, but because the goal requires disruption. The same system that offshored American factories and hollowed out working-class towns does not repair itself with gentle nudges.
Biden chose one path: targeted tariffs, industrial subsidies, climate-linked investment, and multilateral coordination. Trump chooses another: maximum pressure, bilateral leverage, and visible strength. The policy instruments differ. The intent does not.
⚠️ Let’s Not Get Lost in the Methods
If we continue to focus solely on the methods rather than the shared ends, we risk getting bogged down in endless and heated disagreements—debates that may be more about political identity than actual results. This tunnel vision does more than delay progress. It undermines the national unity required to achieve what we all say we want: security, prosperity, and dignity for the American worker.
Now more than ever, we must rise above tactical squabbles and keep the larger objective in view. If the goal is clear—and it is—then a diversity of approaches should be welcomed, not weaponized.
🧠 A Call for Perspective
In today’s hyper-polarized environment, it’s tempting to oppose a policy based solely on who promotes it. But sound economic strategy shouldn’t be judged by tone or posts on X (formerly Twitter), but by purpose and effect.
Yes, the current tariff strategy will likely cause economic disruption—both domestically and globally. But short-term discomfort is a price worth paying if it results in long-term national strength. A stronger, more resilient America benefits not only its own citizens, but the world. The world is a safer place when America is strong and prosperous.
We may disagree on whether Trump’s methods will work. But we should not dismiss them out of hand when they aim at the same outcome Americans broadly support: a more secure, self-reliant, and prosperous nation.
After all, if the end is noble—and clearly defined—then even a disruptive path deserves a fair hearing.
Posted by Iam Kerr
With editorial collaboration from ChatGPT (OpenAI)
Things I Wish My Family Knew 
Leave a comment