The most ironic thing about the trade war is this: the Republican Party built its early success on high tariffs. Of the 19 presidential elections held from 1860 to 1932, Republicans won 14, and they controlled both chambers of Congress 64% of the time. That was no coincidence. The Morrill Tariff Act of 1861 raised the average tariff rate from about 19% to roughly 25%, putting a protective shield around Northern industry. The McKinley Tariff Act of 1890 pushed rates up again, to nearly 48%. Republicans made “protective tariffs” part of their platform, tying factories, workers, and some agricultural interests to their coalition. The 1880 platform explicitly advocated protective tariffs, and Garfield still won: he led the popular vote by only about 1,900 votes, a margin of less than 0.1 percentage point, but secured the Electoral College by a comfortable 214 to 155. So it’s rather telling that some people are now warning against repeating the 1880 platform, when that very platform was the winning one.

Of course, tariffs have never been a one-way bet. After the McKinley Tariff Act of 1890, Republicans lost their House majority in the midterm elections, with their seats falling from 179 to 88. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 pushed the average tariff rate up to about 47%. Trading partners retaliated, and global trade contracted by about two-thirds between 1930 and 1932. U.S. exports fell from about $5.2 billion in 1929 to $1.6 billion in 1932, with agriculture hit even harder. In other words, tariffs can rally voters in the short term, but over the long term, the costs are passed on to consumers, downstream businesses, and industries targeted by retaliation. I’ve stuck to my stop-loss discipline for years and believe in just one thing: cut losses short and let profits run. Applied to politics, it’s clear who wins the votes and who pays the price. What do you think?