Republicans fear Trump’s trade war could lead to political wipeout

The Hill ^ | Apr 14 | by Alexander Bolton

[RandFan]

Republican lawmakers say there’s a good chance that President Trump’s trade war will boomerang on Republicans politically in 2026, as rising prices and shrinking growth could offset other accomplishments by the GOP.

Republican senators are pointing to the 1932 and 1982 elections as historical examples of when trade wars and resulting price inflation hurt their party at the ballot box, and they are worried that history could repeat itself.

Many Republican lawmakers view tariffs as a tax hike on American consumers, and some note that the last two times Congress enacted tax hikes on the scale of Trump’s recent tariffs, the president’s party suffered a wipeout in the next election.

...

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is warning fellow Republicans that they could face landslide defeats next year if they don’t change course on trade, which he says could trigger a severe economic recession.

Paul pointed out that the authors of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act — Sens. Reed Smoot (R-Utah) and Willis Hawley (R-Ore.) — were both defeated in the 1932 election.

He said he believes the tariffs enacted in 1930 made the Great Depression significantly worse and hurt the Republican Party’s brand for decades afterward.

“We went into the wilderness for a long, long time,” he said. “The depression was multifactorial, but most historians have written that that Smoot-Hawley tariff actually made things worse and the depression longer.

“I don’t think the politics are good,” he said. “The economics of tariffs are bad; the politics, if anything, are worse.”

[RandFan]

Why is no one talking about this here? The political ramifications are well documented

[OttawaFreeper]

It was the contraction of the money supply by the Federal Reserve that made things far worse. Milton Friedman wrote about this extensively.

[period end of story]

The so-called long term tariff windfall bull spit is a pipe dream driven by tinfoil tariff nitwits.

Trump’s lifelong distemper with trade deficits is leading
him down a dangerous path.

Stay on China ass, and leave the rest of the world alone.

[FlipWilson]

I suppose nobody is taking about it here because this is typical wish casting from The Hill. Quite frankly, I am shocked it took them this long. I expected this kind of piece from them weeks ago.

This is a story aimed at scaring the RINOs into abandoning Trump.

[ConservativeMind]

RandFan, why are you flailing about like a Democrat?

This has gotten over 120 countries to negotiating table. It got Novartis to bring over $20 billion in US investment, alone.

You and Rand are both not seeing the progress already happening.

Your examples are poor for today. Ask yousrlf how Republicans (or Democrats) were ever allowed to be elected before the income tax was passed, when the whole US government was primarily run off tariffs.

[Bigg Red]

Hear, hear!

[FlipWilson]

And I just have to ask this little tiny question to Senator Paul:

If Tarrifs are the end of the World, then why are we still here? Other countries have been charging egregious Tarrifs on the U.S. for years . So, it’s ok if we collapse into debt as long as the rest of the world is fine? Where would I look to find Senator Paul’s speeches decrying the EU’s Tarrifs or China’s?

[BroJoeK]

"Why is no one talking about this here? "

Historically, Federalists / Whigs / Republicans are the party of high protective tariffs and Democrats oppose high tariffs.

But it was not always 100% strict party line voting.
In 1828, Kentucky's Whig Sen. Henry Clay and Tennessee Democrat Andrew Jackson both supported passing the "Tariff of Abominations", while SC VP John C. Calhoun traded on his reputation as "pro-tariff", pretending to support higher tariffs in hopes of killing the bill.
Calhoun's ploy didn't work because, even though New Englanders also opposed it, many in the Middle Atlantic, Mid-West and South supported it.

But after the "Tariff of Abominations" and the resulting 1830 Nullification Crisis, party lines were strongly drawn, with Democrats united in opposition to higher tariffs, and Republicans favoring tariffs to protect US manufacturing.

By the Progressive Era (circa 1890 - 1920), Republicans had joined Democrats in support of lower tariffs and so passed the 16th Amendment making Income Taxes constitutional.

Smoot Hawley in 1930 was the death-nell of Republican support for lower tariffs.
As often pointed out here, Smoot-Hawley was wrongly blamed for the Great Depression -- I think to distract attention from the real culprits -- which were Federal Reserve monetary policies and FDR's raising taxes in the name of "fairness".

This is how we got bipartisan support for -- and opposition to -- both NAFTA in 1993 (Ross Perot's "giant sucking sound") and the WTO in 1995.
Pres. Clinton and most Republicans supported them, while Ross Perot-type Republicans and labor Democrats opposed them.

The old Ross Perot-type Republicans and labor Democrats are today known as Trump voters.

Bottom line: Pres. Trump's leading the charge for protective tariffs is Republicans returning to our historical norms, while Democrats' support for lower tariffs is also their historical pattern, and indeed, is sometimes cited as the "real reason" Democrats declared secession and war against the United States in 1861.

Libertarian Rand Paul is on the side of Democrats on this one.

[FlipWilson]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14604321/secret-china-trade-war-trump-tariffs-impact.html

[FlipWilson]

Clearly the political winds are behind the democrats backs!! Oh the collapse of the poor Republicans!! Nobody wants to run as a Republican.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/10/politics/michigan-senate-race-democrats-mcdonald-rivet/index.html

Oh, wait. You mean in places like Michigan where foreign Tarrifs have gutted the American worker and ALREADY ruined the economy, tariffs just might be popular and the Democrat brand poison. Nah, Rand Paul and The Schill assure me otherwise.

[no-to-illegals]

Leftist Propaganda …..

[ronnie raygun]

Traitor rand, he knows and sees the unbalance in trade but is willing to keep it the way it is. Another monkey a## siding with the drunken sows from Alaska and Maine

[SoConPubbie]

You’ve hit rock-bottom when you resort to using “The Hill”, the pre-eminent DNC mouthpiece to buttress your claims against our MAGA President and his policies.

[FlipWilson]

In fairness, might the Tarrifs backfire and not work? Sure, it’s a possibility. Any action a President takes can backfire. The same can be said about DOGE.

But this a President ran on taking these actions and is true to his word. Many voted for him believing that these actions were necessary to save our country.

[Chgogal]

You are useless.

[no-to-illegals]

And those screaming the loudest lose their fraudulent money ? Yep !!

[Kudsman]

Part of the reason for a pause may involve 'renovating' the fed? Like replacing the head.

You know, freshen things up a bit. Out with the status quo.

[Olog-hai]

The RINOs always want to abandon Trump. That’s what makes them RINOs.

[Lisbon1940]

If the Pubs wipe out in the midterms, they’ll one roaring back in the presidential.

[Chengdu54]

Last week here, I mentioned how many folks in my age bracket will stay home in Nov. 26 if they’ve seen substantial losses in their IRAs or 401Ks, etc. My comments were not well received here.