Things I Wish My Family Knew

By Iam Kerr | April 19, 2025

In a recent Telegraph article, Tim Wallace argued that a wave of patriotic spending—marked by consumer boycotts of American products in Canada, the U.K., Germany, and beyond—is a backlash against President Trump’s rhetoric and policies. The suggestion is that refusing to buy U.S. goods or travel to the U.S. will punish America economically. But the premise is fundamentally flawed. Far from weakening the U.S., these boycotts reinforce its trade grievances and give Washington every reason to double down on defending American industries and rebalancing the global playing field.

For decades, the United States has tolerated massive trade deficits with many of the very countries now leading this consumer revolt. Canada, the U.K., and Germany have all benefited from exporting far more to the U.S. than they import. The American public, in turn, has grown weary of carrying the weight of global demand while domestic factories close and supply chains move offshore.

Now, in response to political rhetoric, these countries are signaling that they’ll reduce imports of American goods. But this is not the economic body blow they think it is. When a country already sells more to the U.S. than it buys, cutting off American goods only deepens the imbalance—it provokes, not punishes.

Retaliation That Reinforces, Not Weakens

When foreign consumers proudly declare, “We won’t buy American,” they imagine they are striking a blow for sovereignty or justice. But in reality, they are reinforcing U.S. claims of unfair trade and giving greater justification for America to accelerate reshoring, bolster industrial capacity, and protect its economy from foreign dependency.

This growing economic nationalism abroad only hardens America’s resolve to pursue what Aristotle once described as wise political conduct: “We must act with a view to the end.” The ultimate end for the United States is not conquest or revenge—it is economic security. The U.S. is not looking to impoverish its allies but to restore financial sustainability at home by reducing, and eventually eliminating, its federal debt—a debt that now exceeds $34 trillion.

More urgently, the U.S. must restore financial health to two of its greatest domestic promises: Social Security and Medicare, both of which are projected to become insolvent in the coming decade. No stable civilization can flourish when it neglects the future to indulge the present. This is the lens through which America’s actions must be viewed—not short-term tit-for-tat retaliation, but long-term national repair.

Why Boycotts Backfire: Three Points Everyone Should Understand

Three reasons these boycotts backfire are hard to ignore:

• The U.S. already buys more than it sells. Cutting off American goods just deepens the imbalance that started this dispute in the first place.
• Tourism is asymmetric. American travelers are high spenders. Losing them hurts foreign economies more than losing their tourists hurts the U.S.
• Economic size matters. The U.S. has more room to adapt. For smaller countries, restricting trade with America is like losing your best customer.

These are not complex economic theories—they are everyday truths that any citizen, whether in London, Berlin, or Ontario, can understand.

The Flawed Notion of Equal Risk

We often hear that “no one wins a trade war,” but that cliché only holds in a vacuum. In the real world, the side with more leverage, more scale, and more internal resiliency has the upper hand. These are not playground squabbles between equals—they are high-stakes contests between nations with very different risk profiles.

Trying to economically isolate the United States is like trying to build a wall around your own oxygen supply. It may sound bold in the moment, but the consequences are immediate and unsustainable.

Conclusion: Short-Term Spite, Long-Term Clarity

These boycotts may be satisfying to their participants in the moment, but they expose a deeper truth: the world depends more on access to the American economy than America depends on access to theirs. And ironically, the more countries act to restrict their markets to U.S. goods or travelers, the more clearly they reveal the trade imbalances they once denied.

America, for its part, must remain focused on the ultimate objective—not momentary vindication, but long-term economic stability. That means rebuilding manufacturing, securing supply chains, and ensuring the survival of Medicare and Social Security for future generations.

Americans should not be discouraged by short-term discomfort. Rebuilding our economy—reshoring industries, restoring fiscal responsibility, and revitalizing domestic production—will take time. But the end is worth it. A strong, self-sustaining America is not just good for Americans—it’s good for the world.

Just ask yourself: What would the world look like today had the Allied forces lost World War II? Imagine a post-war era shaped not by American ideals of liberty and self-determination, but by the domination of totalitarian regimes. The outcome of that war—and the stability that followed—was possible because America emerged as the most powerful nation in the world. With that power, the U.S. didn’t conquer others—it rebuilt Europe, defended democracy, protected trade routes, and became a global anchor of peace and prosperity.

That legacy should not be forgotten. As Abraham Lincoln reminded a weary nation in crisis, “As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.” We won’t all agree on the policy path—but unless it is immoral or unlawful, we must unite around the shared purpose of rebuilding American strength.

Because when America is strong, the world is steadier. And when America leads with clarity and conviction, freedom has a fighting chance.

---

Created by Iam Kerr with research and editorial assistance from ChatGPT (OpenAI), April 19, 2025.