Trump Didn’t Invent Protectionism — He Just Made It Toxic
Democrats must reclaim economic self-determination without the demagoguery
Donald Trump didn’t invent protectionism. He didn’t discover tariffs, industrial policy, or economic nationalism. What he did — both in his first term and even more aggressively now in his second — was poison the well, turning a potentially strategic approach into a bludgeon for grievance politics.
But that doesn’t mean Democrats should cede the territory. In a world of geopolitical realignment and fragile supply chains, protectionist tools — used wisely — can support both national resilience and middle-class revival. The question is whether Democrats have the courage to reclaim those tools without mimicking Trump’s demagoguery.
Protectionism isn’t a MAGA invention
Trump’s version of protectionism is loud, punitive, and economically incoherent. His renewed tariff escalations have once again alienated allies, confused markets, and done little to strengthen American industry in a sustainable way. His framing remains less about long-term strategy than short-term theater: bullying our most steadfast ally, Canada — punishing China — browbeating Mexico — and blaming globalism for the very working-class hardships his administration continues to promote.
But here’s the catch: many of the problems Trump exploits are real. Offshoring has gutted communities. Global supply chains are fragile. Foreign governments do subsidize key industries, and the U.S. has spent decades eroding its manufacturing base in pursuit of abstract market efficiencies.
Where Trump offers chaos, Democrats must counter with coherence. But to do so, they have to stop running from the word “protectionism” as if it were political kryptonite.
Democrats must stop avoiding the word
Protectionism, in its responsible form, is not about isolationism or economic aggression. It’s about shaping markets to serve national goals — economic, strategic, and civic. It includes smart tariffs, targeted subsidies, domestic sourcing requirements, and supply chain incentives. It doesn’t mean walling off the world. It means balancing openness with resilience and putting national interests ahead of short-term shareholder gains.
Countries like Germany, Japan, and South Korea never gave up on these tools. The United States did — at least rhetorically — during the height of the neoliberal consensus. Under President Biden, the country took cautious steps back toward industrial policy. Now, under Trump again, that legacy is being erased or corrupted by politics of spectacle.
The former Biden administration’s push — evident in the CHIPS Act, clean energy incentives, and reshoring initiatives — wasn’t just politically savvy, it was strategically necessary. Those were protectionist moves in substance, if not always in name. And they showed that protectionism, when done right, could serve both workers and national security without descending into nationalism or xenophobia.
But until Democrats are willing to speak honestly about the rationale behind those moves — and claim them proudly — they leave the narrative wide open for President Trump to distort.
The danger is ceding the ground to Trump
When Democrats avoid bold language about economic self-determination, they allow Trump to posture as the only political figure who “fights for American jobs.” Never mind that his policies rarely deliver. Politics is about narrative as much as outcomes, and the Democrats can’t afford to surrender the language of economic patriotism.
Trump’s protectionism remains performative. But the need for economic resilience has only grown more urgent. Democrats can win this argument — if they stop treating it like a trap.
Let’s be clear: Trump’s current policies are protectionist in name only. They are deeply transactional, largely rhetorical, and often counterproductive. His tariffs are imposed with little coordination or follow-through. His focus is more on the symbolism of confrontation than the substance of reform. And his commitments to domestic industry vanish the moment they interfere with personal gain or tax cuts for the wealthy.
That doesn’t mean protectionism is doomed. It means the Democrats have a chance to rehabilitate it.
Reclaiming the language of economic resilience
If protectionism becomes synonymous with Trumpism, the Democrats will have no way to address legitimate concerns about trade, jobs, and global competition without sounding evasive or elitist. That’s not just a messaging problem — it’s a strategic vulnerability.
To reclaim the initiative, Democrats must speak clearly: about building things in America, about ensuring national supply chain integrity, and about deploying the power of government to shape markets — not just react to them.
The policy tools already exist. The political opening is there. What’s missing is the will to reframe protectionism not as a betrayal of liberal values, but as a realignment of them — toward inclusion, sustainability, and national resilience.
This isn’t about nostalgia for the past. It’s about confronting the realities of the present: a rising China, a destabilized global order, a climate crisis demanding rapid industrial transformation, and a domestic economy hollowed out by decades of financial abstraction. A well-planned protectionist strategy isn’t regression — it’s reconstruction.
Protectionism, rightly understood, isn’t the enemy of progress. It’s a tool to shape it. But like any tool, it can be misused. The challenge isn’t to reject it — but to wield it with foresight, integrity, and accountability.
It’s time to take it back
Trump turned protectionism into a toxic brand. It’s time to take it back — and make it work.
That means building new industries — not just defending old ones. It means coordinating with allies — not threatening them. And it means crafting policy with outcomes in mind — not optics.
Democrats should not run from protectionism. They should define it, refine it, and deploy it with clarity of purpose. Because if they don’t, Trump — or someone worse — will continue to weaponize it.
We don’t need to fear economic nationalism. We need to reclaim it — as a tool of democratic sovereignty, shared prosperity, and long-term national strength.
Author’s Note:
In the 21st century, industry is no longer defined by smokestacks, steel mills, or assembly-line mass production. Instead, it is characterized by advanced technologies, automation, and globally integrated supply chains.
Today’s industrial products are often intangible — software, semiconductors, data infrastructure, and biotech innovations — and when physical, they tend to be highly specialized, modular, and dependent on precision engineering.
The industrial workforce is increasingly composed of knowledge workers, roboticists, and supply-chain tuners, not riveters or machinists. Manufacturing is still vital, but it is embedded within a much broader ecosystem that includes logistics, cloud computing, AI, and intellectual property.
It requires an expansion of public education — past traditional secondary school— and emphasizing modern technologies and STEM. Most modern technical jobs do not really require a college degree (though clueless employers often demand one) but they do require a working familiarity with modern technology and the tools to rapidly assimilate technical knowledge.
By contrast, 19th and 20th century industry was dominated by heavy manufacturing, where productivity gains came from mechanization, economies of scale, and brute labor intensity. Steel, coal, railroads, automobiles, and textiles formed the backbone of industrial output. Economic strength was measured in tonnage and horsepower, and industrial jobs were physically demanding, often dangerous, and unionized.
Those industries built infrastructure, won wars, and created a robust middle class — but they also polluted heavily and were limited in adaptability. Today’s industry is lighter, cleaner, and faster, but also more precarious, and less unionized.
Its workers still need the security of enlightened labor laws and robust collective bargaining.
