Tariffs Rest on Distrust of Citizens: Protectionism’s Hidden Contempt
Why Read This
What Makes This Article Worth Your Time
Summary
What This Article Is About
Donald J. Boudreaux catalogs familiar protectionist fallacies—not understanding that trade simultaneously creates better jobs while destroying some particular ones, misconstruing trade deficits, missing comparative advantage principles, seeing importing as burdensome rather than beneficial (analogous to viewing accepting paychecks as burdens borne to obtain the “privilege” of toiling for employers). Rather than exhausting space listing well-known misunderstandings, Boudreaux focuses on one infrequently mentioned fallacy: protectionists’ presumption that fellow citizens regularly spend and invest money stupidly. This becomes obvious examining protectionist claims about American economy—that freer trade from mid-1970s to 2018 “hollowed out” industrial economy through cheap T-shirts and trinkets imports, that half-century trade deficits transferred wealth to foreigners, that American producers have been out-competed by “wily foreigners” requiring government handicaps and subsidies, that desperate manufacturing workers lost jobs to low-wage foreign workers.
Boudreaux emphasizes these claims imply Americans are “dismayingly dull-witted”—childishly irresponsible with money, buffoons in commerce compared to non-Americans. Protectionist narratives portray only foreigners taking initiative while Americans remain inert, passive victims: foreigners cheat us, take our jobs, outcompete us, destroy industries, buy assets, load us with debt, enrich themselves at our expense—yet every transaction requires voluntary American participation. Protectionists’ opinion “could hardly be lower,” suggesting Americans grow poorer after each foreign transaction despite continuing to engage voluntarily, either too senseless to realize deepening impoverishment or delusional hoping to “turn the tables” on cunning foreign merchants. Ironically, portraying citizens as foreigners’ intellectual equals would forfeit protectionists’ ability to blame foreigners for mythical trade damage. In contrast, free traders trust both foreign merchants and fellow citizens spend money prudently, learning from mistakes, with nearly all transactions benefiting both parties. Boudreaux poses the critical question: if individual transactions benefit Americans, how can the aggregate result harm Americans as a group? Protectionists can’t explicitly deny individual gains without revealing contempt for citizens’ intelligence, nor claim positive numbers sum to negatives without rejecting arithmetic. Their implicit answer—individual gains offset by losses inflicted on other Americans (Joe buying Swedish car causes Molly losing Michigan factory job)—still indicts American competence: Why don’t Americans compete better? Are abilities so limited Molly works only in plants? Are businesses so inept they can’t employ her elsewhere? Is America so devoid of entrepreneurship no one invents new products or production methods? Free traders answer each question with unambiguous “no” backed by evidence, while protectionists must “torture the data” and believe citizens participating in markets are “dumb as dirt.”
Key Points
Main Takeaways
Familiar Protectionist Fallacies Cataloged
Protectionists don’t understand trade creates better jobs while destroying some, misconstrue trade deficits, miss comparative advantage, and bizarrely see importing as burden rather than benefit—like viewing paychecks as burdens.
Core Fallacy: Citizens Spend Stupidly
Infrequently mentioned protectionist presumption: fellow citizens regularly spend and invest money stupidly, becoming obvious when examining claims about America’s economy being “hollowed out” and wealth “transferred” to foreigners.
Americans Portrayed as Passive Dolts
Protectionist narratives depict only foreigners taking initiative while Americans remain inert victims—foreigners cheat, take jobs, outcompete—yet every transaction requires voluntary American participation, revealing contempt for citizens’ intelligence.
Ironic Narrative Structure Required
Ironically, portraying citizens as foreigners’ intellectual equals would forfeit protectionists’ ability blaming foreigners for mythical trade damage—protectionist fables require domestic good guys also serve as dolts victimized by devious, smarter foreigners.
Critical Aggregate Question Posed
If individual transactions benefit Americans, how can aggregate result harm Americans as group? Protectionists can’t deny individual gains without revealing contempt, nor claim positive numbers sum negatively without rejecting arithmetic.
Free Traders Trust Competence
Free traders trust both foreign merchants and fellow citizens spend money prudently, learning from mistakes—nearly all transactions benefit both parties, with evidence supporting American economic competence contra protectionists “torturing data.”
Master Reading Comprehension
Practice with 365 curated articles and 2,400+ questions across 9 RC types.
Article Analysis
Breaking Down the Elements
Main Idea
Protectionism’s Fundamental Contempt for Citizen Intelligence
Central argument: protectionist policies rest on unacknowledged fundamental contempt for citizens’ economic intelligence and competence. While cataloging familiar fallacies, pivots to “infrequently mentioned” foundation—protectionists presume fellow citizens “regularly spend and invest money stupidly.” This becomes evident examining protectionist claims necessarily implying Americans are “dismayingly dull-witted,” “childishly irresponsible,” “buffoons” compared to non-Americans. Logical structure reveals contempt: protectionist stories portray only foreigners taking initiative while Americans remain inert, passive victims—yet every supposedly harmful transaction requires voluntary American participation. Rhetorical power lies in exposing ideological foundations protectionists prefer leaving implicit, demonstrating entire worldview requires believing citizens fundamentally incompetent at economic decision-making.
Purpose
Rhetorical Exposure Through Logical Interrogation
Writes to undermine protectionism through rhetorical exposure of ideological foundations protectionists prefer keeping implicit. Purpose simultaneously pedagogical and political: teaching readers recognizing contempt embedded in protectionist narratives while delegitimizing those narratives by making presumptions explicit and therefore indefensible. Functions as reductio ad absurdum argument—taking protectionist premises seriously reveals they logically require believing citizens “dumb as dirt.” Positions himself as populist defender of ordinary citizens against elite condescension, inverting typical political alignments where protectionism presents as defending workers. Concluding advice frames issue as respect rather than economics, suggesting protectionism’s appeal depends on keeping contemptuous foundations hidden from scrutiny.
Structure
Catalog Pivot → Narrative Analysis → Logical Dilemma → Rhetorical Questions → Contrast
Opens cataloging familiar protectionist fallacies before pivoting: “But I instead want to focus on one infrequently mentioned protectionist fallacy” regarding citizen competence. Strategic move establishes expertise while positioning actual argument as novel contribution. Middle sections analyze protectionist narrative structure examining specific claims demonstrating they “imply we Americans are dismayingly dull-witted.” Observes protectionist stories grammatically privilege foreign agency while rendering Americans passive despite every transaction requiring voluntary American participation. Poses critical logical dilemma: if individual transactions benefit Americans, how can aggregates harm Americans as group? Systematically eliminates possible protectionist responses trapping them in indefensible positions. Conclusion shifts to rapid-fire rhetorical questions hammering home absurdity before contrasting free traders’ trust with protectionists’ contempt.
Tone
Sardonic Advocacy Through Logical Interrogation
Maintains sardonic, combative tone throughout—characterizing protectionist views with contemptuous precision while positioning himself as defender of ordinary citizens against elite condescension. Employs vivid, dismissive language for protectionist positions. Paycheck analogy demonstrates rhetorical strategy: making protectionist logic visible through reductio ad absurdum comparisons revealing inherent absurdity. Tone becomes increasingly aggressive culminating in rhetorical questions barrage and final declaration protectionists believe citizens “dumb as dirt”—harsh phrasing justified through logical demonstration rather than name-calling. Positions free traders not as elitist intellectuals but as respectful populists who “trust fellow citizens spend money prudently,” inverting typical political alignments. Tonal strategy serves political purposes: delegitimizing protectionism by associating it with contempt for ordinary people while claiming mantle of respecting citizen competence.
Key Terms
Vocabulary from the Article
Click each card to reveal the definition
Build your vocabulary systematically
Each article in our course includes 8-12 vocabulary words with contextual usage.
Tough Words
Challenging Vocabulary
Tap each card to flip and see the definition
Wicked, evil, or criminal in nature; extremely immoral or villainous; describing actions that are flagrantly unjust, dishonest, or malicious.
“But of course each and every one of the international commercial transactions in which foreigners allegedly inflict these nefarious consequences on Americans is a transaction to which an American (or group of Americans) is a voluntary party.”
To interpret incorrectly or misunderstand the meaning of something; to get the wrong sense or understanding, often resulting in false conclusions.
“Protectionists seriously misconstrue so-called ‘trade deficits.'”
Quality of having sharp judgment and keen insight; shrewdness, perceptiveness, or cleverness in understanding situations and making intelligent decisions.
“It’s easy to understand why, in protectionist tales, foreigners act with initiative and astuteness while Americans react passively and dully.”
Characterized by false beliefs held despite contradictory evidence; maintaining unrealistic or irrational convictions; suffering from delusions or mistaken ideas about reality.
“Or maybe we are so delusional that we continue to hope that, although we have consistently been harmed by foreigners when trade is free, we’ll soon turn the tables on those cunning merchants who ship us their goods from abroad.”
Lacking foresight or long-range perspective in planning or thinking; shortsighted, unable to see beyond immediate circumstances to consider future consequences or broader implications.
“Are we Americans so myopic and frivolous that whenever we sell assets to non-Americans we blow all the sales proceeds on satisfying our immediate sensual desires rather than reinvest these proceeds…”
In a manner showing careful judgment and good sense; acting with wisdom, discretion, and caution; making sensible and practical decisions considering potential consequences.
“We trust that our fellow citizens spend and invest their own money prudently and productively.”
Reading Comprehension
Test Your Understanding
5 questions covering different RC question types
1According to Boudreaux, protectionist narratives portray Americans as active initiators in international commerce while foreigners merely respond to American economic decisions.
2What logical dilemma does Boudreaux pose to expose protectionist inconsistency?
3Which sentence best captures Boudreaux’s observation about the ironic narrative requirements of protectionist arguments?
4Evaluate these statements about how free traders view citizens and foreigners according to Boudreaux:
Free traders believe Americans are inherently superior to foreigners in business acumen, entrepreneurship, and financial decision-making abilities.
Free traders trust that fellow citizens spend and invest money prudently and productively, learning from mistakes and adjusting decision-making accordingly.
Free traders believe nearly all commercial transactions between Americans and foreigners result in both foreign traders and American citizens gaining from the exchange.
Select True or False for all three statements, then click “Check Answers”
5What can be inferred about Boudreaux’s strategic choice to focus on protectionists’ implicit contempt for citizens rather than empirically refuting their economic claims?
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
Boudreaux writes that protectionists “see the act of importing stuff as the burden a people must unfortunately bear in order to obtain the privilege of exporting stuff. (It would be as if you were to see your act of accepting paychecks from your employer as the burden you must unfortunately bear in order to obtain the privilege of toiling for your employer.)” This analogy exposes protectionist logic’s absurdity by reversing benefits and burdens: just as paychecks are the benefit of working (not the burden), imports are the benefit of trade (not the burden). Employees work to receive money, not the reverse; similarly, countries trade to receive imports (goods they want), not to get rid of exports. The analogy makes visible what protectionist rhetoric obscures—the fundamental inversion of actual incentives and benefits.
Boudreaux explains: “One possible response of the protectionists would be to deny that we individual Americans gain in most of the transactions that we have with foreigners. But protectionists can’t explicitly respond in this way because to do so would clearly reveal their low opinion of their fellow citizens’ intelligence.” If protectionists explicitly claimed Americans consistently make transactions that harm themselves despite voluntarily choosing them, they’d be openly stating citizens are too stupid to recognize their own interests—a politically untenable position. Protectionists must maintain the fiction that their concern is protecting competent citizens from external threats (clever foreigners) rather than protecting incompetent citizens from their own poor judgment. Making the contempt explicit would destroy protectionism’s popular appeal by revealing it as fundamentally paternalistic and condescending.
“Protectionists, in contrast, in addition to having to torture the data to elicit from them a false anti-free-trade confession, cannot escape the charge of believing that their fellow citizens, when participating in market exchanges, are dumb as dirt.” The phrase “torture the data” suggests forcing evidence to produce desired conclusions through selective presentation, misleading statistics, or inappropriate analytical methods—making data “confess” to claims it doesn’t actually support. Boudreaux contrasts free traders who “have reams of evidence on the performance of the American economy” supporting their trust in citizen competence against protectionists who must manipulate data to support claims that trade harms America despite individual Americans voluntarily choosing these transactions. The metaphor implies intellectual dishonesty—protectionists start with their conclusion (trade is bad) and force data to support it rather than following evidence to conclusions.
Readlite provides curated articles with comprehensive analysis including summaries, key points, vocabulary building, and practice questions across 9 different RC question types. Our Ultimate Reading Course offers 365 articles with 2,400+ questions to systematically improve your reading comprehension skills.
This is an Intermediate-level article requiring understanding of economic argumentation, ability to follow logical reasoning through rhetorical questions, and recognition of how implicit assumptions get exposed through reductio ad absurdum. Readers must grasp basic trade concepts (comparative advantage, trade deficits) while tracking Boudreaux’s strategic choice focusing on protectionists’ implicit contempt rather than empirical refutation, understand how narrative structure (foreign agency, American passivity) reveals ideological commitments, and recognize the logical trap he constructs (if individual transactions benefit Americans, aggregates can’t harm without denying competence or arithmetic). Success requires synthesizing economic concepts with rhetorical analysis, appreciating how arguments function politically beyond their logical content, and recognizing the essay as much about framing and ideology as about trade policy specifics. Boudreaux’s accessible prose and vivid analogies make sophisticated argumentation comprehensible without economics training.
Standard economic critiques of protectionism focus on comparative advantage, job creation dynamics, or trade deficit misunderstandings—technical economic concepts that can be debated with data. Boudreaux’s focus on implicit contempt for citizens is “infrequently mentioned” because it attacks at an ideological level beneath policy debates. Most anti-protectionist arguments accept protectionists’ framing (concern for American workers, protecting industry) while disagreeing about means; Boudreaux instead exposes the framing itself as fundamentally contemptuous. This argument is less frequently deployed because: it’s harder to prove than empirical claims (requires analyzing narrative structure and logical implications), it seems more personal/political than technical economic debate, and it forces uncomfortable recognition that popular policies rest on unflattering assumptions about voters themselves. By making this “infrequently mentioned” argument, Boudreaux repositions the entire debate from policy efficacy to ideological foundations.
The Ultimate Reading Course covers 9 RC question types: Multiple Choice, True/False, Multi-Statement T/F, Text Highlight, Fill in the Blanks, Matching, Sequencing, Error Spotting, and Short Answer. This comprehensive coverage prepares you for any reading comprehension format you might encounter.
