Survey: 63 Percent of Americans Support Free Trade. Why Don't Our Politicians?
Seventy-five percent of respondents are concerned that tariffs will raise the cost of the things they buy, yet neither Trump nor Harris has suggested lowering them.

A recent survey found that, by and large, people support free trade. So why don't our politicians?
This week, the Cato Institute released its 2024 Trade and Globalization National Survey. Of the 2,000 American adults polled by YouGov, 66 percent said that international trade is good for the U.S. economy. When half of the respondents were asked if they "favor or oppose the United States increasing trade with other nations," 63 percent were in favor. (The other half were instead asked if they "favor or oppose people in the United States trading more with people from other nations," to which a smaller majority of 53 percent responded favorably.)
And why shouldn't they? Free trade among nations has numerous positive effects: It lowers consumer prices, decreases inflationary pressures, and incentivizes efficiency and innovation. In 1817, the British economist David Ricardo determined that "a country should produce and export only those goods and services which it can produce more efficiently than other goods and services, which it should import," as summarized by Marian Tupy in 2017.
That sentiment doesn't seem to have caught on among our national politicians. Both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump have instituted tariffs on imported goods. In Trump's case, the tariffs—intended to target China—actually stymied U.S. exports and drove more automaker jobs overseas. Then once Biden took office, he neglected to repeal—and in some cases even raised—the tariffs Trump had imposed, which Trump called out at their debate in June.
If elected again in November, Trump has floated a 10 percent tariff on nearly all imported goods and a 60 percent tariff on goods from China. Vice President Kamala Harris, who recently replaced Biden as the presumptive Democratic nominee, has not addressed trade policy on the campaign trail, but she's unlikely to depart significantly from her boss: William Reinsch of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told The New York Times that Harris is "a bit of a blank slate, but one most likely to be filled in with trade skepticism." Based on her time in the U.S. Senate, Reinsch assumes that "she is part of the progressive wing of the party which is skeptical of trade agreements in general, and particularly of those that involve market access."
It's a shame that neither of the candidates representing the two major political parties favors free trade in an open market—especially since the Cato poll suggests that Americans, in large part, do.
Unfortunately, the poll also suggests that Americans—just like their elected officials—may be a bit confused on the subject.
Seventy-five percent of respondents indicated being "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" "about rising prices of things you buy because of trade tariffs." But a majority would also support imposing tariffs on certain products, under certain conditions, if they felt it would help American businesses. For example, 62 percent said they would support "adding a tariff to blue jeans sold in the US that are manufactured in other countries to boost production and jobs in the American blue jean industry"—though, notably, 66 percent would oppose a tariff if it raised the price of a pair of jeans by $10.
Further, when asked, "From what you've read and heard, who primarily is responsible for paying for the cost of a U.S. tariff," only 47 percent answered that it was American consumers. The next highest answer was "Not sure" at 20 percent, followed by 15 percent who said the U.S. government pays, 12 percent who said foreign companies pay, and 5 percent who said foreign governments pay the tariffs.
Despite Trump's claims that exporting countries pay tariffs, it is indeed consumers who pay in the form of higher prices. On the campaign trail in 2019, Biden claimed—accurately—that "Trump doesn't get the basics. He thinks his tariffs are being paid by China. Any freshman econ student could tell you that the American people are paying his tariffs." And yet as recently as last month, Biden was proposing 25 percent tariffs on imports from Mexico that use Chinese steel.
While not entirely consistent on the subject, the survey suggests that Americans largely recognize the positive effects of international free trade. It's a shame, then, that our politicians don't.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"63 Percent of Americans Support Free Trade. Why Don't Our Politicians?"
Could it be because most politicians are either economic illiterates or have a slobbering love affair with socialism and all its failures?
Or because most politicians can expect to buy votes with authoritarian economics?
That's the answer. It's not ideology. It's that in those cases where it matters enough to people to sway their votes, tariffs that impair their competition are worth the cost. In general, though, they're for free trade.
I disagree with Lancaster that Trump doesn't want free trade; it's inconsistent with calling out Biden for raising tariffs. Further Trump has floated a reciprocal tariff policy whereby he threatens to raise tariffs for a country's exports if they have higher tariffs on US imports. Trump is using tariffs against countries that don't support free trade. Admittedly at the cost of US consumers. Seems like a reasonable plan to increase free trade to me.
Further, Lancaster didn't answer the question why our politicians don't support free trade. It's simply because by controlling trade, politicians generate campaign cash from rent-seeking businessmen and countries, seeking favors in trade policy (libertarians should know). Hunter Biden is exhibit 1.
HEAVILY taxing Trump's stolen erections would fix it ALL!!!! The Tooth Fairy and the Truth Fairy pay ALL of THOSE particular taxes!!!
Don't tax you,
don't tax me,
tax the Spermy Daniels
behind the tree!
Free trade is independent of what other governments do.
Free trade is the relationship between consumers and their own government. Not other governments. Just their own. Does a nation’s government restrict trade or allow free trade? That’s the only measure.
Our ability to engage in free trade is independent of another country’s government taxing consumers of imports, or taxing consumers to subsidize exporters. That’s their government fucking with them and giving concentrated benefits at the expense of dispersed costs. Great politics. Bad economics.
The opponents of free trade argue that it’s not fair when another government taxes consumers of imports, or subsidizes industry. Not fair. To rectify this unfairness consumers should pay taxes on imports and pay taxes for subsidies. They say that’s the only way to achieve free trade. Seriously?
However, from the above article...
Further, when asked, "From what you've read and heard, who primarily is responsible for paying for the cost of a U.S. tariff," only 47 percent answered that it was American consumers. The next highest answer was "Not sure" at 20 percent, followed by 15 percent who said the U.S. government pays, 12 percent who said foreign companies pay, and 5 percent who said foreign governments pay the tariffs.
THIS is what ye get from INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS, self-righteousness, and short-sighted tribalism! And our "pubic skools" are doing exactly ZERO to truly educate the stubborn and unwilling-to-learn! (It just might be a hopeless cause. We've got to keep on fighting the good fight, though, 'cause there's no other sensible choice. No retreat, no surrender!)
People don't realize it's a tax. They think tariffs on China are paid by China. Yes. Please change your name back.
Current tariffs are 50B. Current immigrant welfare on immigrants is 170B. Current shoplifting costs are 130B.
All have costs to taxpayers and consumers. Yet you only care about one.
Tariffs are also almost never universal. You can do a consumer supply switch to avoid the tax completely.
Thr increased costs of goods to pay for theft and security to prevent theft also increases cost of goods sold and increases market prices. These causes also dwarf current tariff costs.
SQRLSY is back, at yer service! My "Mike Pence" point has been made, already, I do believe... Being a top-ranking member of "Team R" will NOT keep ye safe from The Petulant, Prurient, and Purulent Wrath of The Donald, dammit!!!
It's not about education, it's about desire. You can't teach people to not want other people's goodies. It's not about lack of knowledge. If you could steal without ever being found out, you'd do so, while being against crime all along.
Correct and well put! In short... We can NOT "educate away" evil (or greed, hypocrisy, narcissism, or self-righteousness, or other varieties of evil).
I read once that the young dictator(s)-in-waiting from North Korea were given the finest European (Swiss?) education(s) that money could buy!
Will our pubic skools admit this? Hell no!!!!
This is so retarded and false. A one sided market where one side can violate trade agreements, pressure markets, manipulate markets is not a free market. It is an advantaged market.
Try reading a fucking book some time.
But then there has never been and never will be a free market. Other countries will always be able to do those things. So I'd say the real question is how much restriction on the ability of the American people to trade freely with the rest of the world is appropriate? Countries don't engage in trade, people (and groups of people organized in various ways) do.
I agree there has never been a free market. There has never been any ideal state.
Ignoring bad actions by others in a market doesn't magically make it a free market.
I prefer a system that brings in game theories and trade principles. Tit for tat counters.
For decades economists have had competitions of algorithms to try to figure out optimal studies for markets. The most ideal outcome is always tit for tat. The worst models are ironically those who ignore all past behaviors or trades from other algorithms.
The other part of this is that people scream free trade when they mean largely managed trade. All free trade pacts are simply large trade bills of restrictions and tariffs.
On top of that the costs associated with corrective trade or even protectionist trade practices are dwarfed by regulatory restrictions.
Ultimately the entire debate around tariffs and wrongly using free trade is a red herring to ignore the larger issues in the economy like competing regulatory frameworks. Believe it was the guy running for office in Canada who pointed out 30% of housing costs were due explicitly to regulatory costs.
As I said before, free trade is between you and your government.
Does your government facilitate or impede trade.
Has nothing to do with what other governments do.
Unfree trade, under the leftist emotive guise of fairness, what you defend, is simply political excuses for people in government to make decisions for you. But you like that. As long as you like the people in charge.
"Further, Lancaster didn’t answer the question why our politicians don’t support free trade."
Hello?!?! Did ye know that Trump is a... POLITICIAN?!?!?
Your so-called (butt God-awfully tribalistic) "brain" apparently says... Politicians BAD! Except if they belong to MY Sacred Tribe, and LIE convincingly enough to MEEEE, that they will offer MEEE "free and equal access" to Spermy Daniels, Our Queen, Who Art Drenched in Vaseline!!!
I have a clue for ye, Buddy... Der TrumpfenFarter-Fuhrer is NOT going to allow ye to "access" Spermy Daniels!!! I promise ye, and I am NOT a politician!
Trump is the only president ever who offered zero tariffs if other countries reciprocated. None said yes.
Allowing one side to manipulate markets in an economy is not a free market but an advantaged market.
See the idiocy of sarc above.
Trump is the only president ever who offered that Mexico would pay for His Sacred Walls!!!! And certain IDIOTS are prone to believing His Promises!!!
THIS.
Trump tried this right out of the gate --and got laughed at at best and accused of trying to gain personal advantage at worst.
Trump is, first and foremost, a businessman, he, far more than any of Reason's prattling leftists, knows the value to be had from free trade.
And he knows, again, more than the buffoons who pretend to understanding economics, that you can only have it with someone playing the same game.
So you offer it, and play with all takers so long as they play as well.
And for those who don't, well, you play them as best you can.
other than for votes and probably not even really for votes, politicians do not support 100% of Americans.
Nothing in the survey questions mentions “free” trade or tariffs. It is a generic question about trade in general. You can argue against tariffs all you want but this survey doesn’t really support the rest of the article. Or the subhead that claims 75 percent are concerned that tariffs will raise prices.
Trump wanted to drop all tariffs. Nobody took him up on the offer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs
You are hereby declared to be full of shit! How many asterisks and hedges and qualifications would have been included in Trump's "dropping all tariffs"? WHY did He shit all over the TPP, if He is SOOOO in favor of "free trade"?
It's amazing how TDS ignorant you are. As-if foreign tariffs on USA products wasn't part of that "offer" as you've been told over and over and over again.
Did ye ALSO trust in Trump’s “offer” to make the Mexicans pay for His Walls? Or Stalin's promise to hold free and fair elections in Eastern European nations "liberated" by the USSR?
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion"
Does it matter. It's one of the very FEW actual duties of having a Union of States government in the first place.
Do you know Biden increased tarrifs?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/23/politics/biden-trump-tariffs-steel-whiskey-china/index.html
Biden administration eases some Trump-era tariffs on exports from UK and China
I searched and searched for this shit about "Trump proposes eliminating all tariffs" and found NOTHING!!! How about posting a LINK, fer Chrissakes?!?!
Also see https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/free-trade.asp#:~:text=A%20free%20trade%20agreement%20is,prohibitions%20to%20inhibit%20their%20exchange. and then tell us WHY "pro-free-trade" Trump shit ALL over the TPP, which WOULD have been a HUGE step in the right direction!!!
So you acknowledge your response above was made up bullshit?
Trump at G7: US president calls for end to tariffs and trade barriers
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44423072
Thanks for the link, for once!
Now, did ya actually READ shit??!? At the same time ass this Trump asshole is saying "eliminate all tariffs", He is PervFectly hammering them (His "trade enemies") with HIS tariffs!!!
Out-takes from YOUR link!!!
"Mr Trump said talks with fellow leaders were "extremely productive" despite tensions over his decision to impose tariffs on steel and aluminium imports.
US allies were furious over the move, raising fears of a global trade war."
"Angered by the high steel and aluminium tariffs, Canada, Mexico and the EU have all said they are all planning retaliatory measures."
"His statements on the sidelines of the contentious G7 summit come just weeks after his administration slapped metals tariffs on Canada, the EU and Mexico, who quickly announced their own retaliatory measures."
Hey all of ye assholes!!! I, too, am all in favor of lily-white Perfection... Pure ass the driven slush-lush... Butt YOU first!!! YOU go be perfect FIRST, and then (I pinky-swear!) I will STOP being a greedy and PervFectly Self-Righteous, EVIL slime-bucket!!! AFTER you become perfect, first, in every way!!! I promise!!!
He proposed zero tariffs. It was rejected. Why?
Because He was and still is a GIANT douche and a hypocrite!!!
I armed myself to the teeth, while proposing that all others everywhere should give up ALL of their weapons, and that I would then join them, afterwards, I pinky-swear, HELLO YOU FUCKING IMBECILES!!! WHY does my proposal get rejected?
Kaa-Snake, Jungle Book, Trust in ME!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJHPfpOnDzg
The strangest part of shit all is that “Unilateral surrender” is EXACTLY what we should do, in trade wars! “You fools taxed the shit out of your people, so we’re gonna tax the shit out of our people” is the other choice, instead of “Unilateral surrender”!!! The best way to fight a “war of cutting off your nose, to spite your face, more and better than the next guy”, is to NOT play the game at ALL!!!
Just because other nations are stupid, doesn't mean that we should be stupid, too! But expecting THEM to give up their stupidity FIRST is asking too much!
(For the same reasons why YOU will NEVER give up YOUR stupidity!)
Because He was and still is a GIANT douche and a hypocrite!!!
A sound basis for policy making indeed.
I'm sure glad that you finally see reason here!
NOT taking the Good Word of (NOT trusting) GIANT douches and a hypocrites IS, indeed, VERY sound policy! Good job on taking BACK your PervFectly stupid words for once! Humility is hard, so congratulations!!!
The next lessons are actually pretty simple: Trade wars and shooting wars have in common, that no one ever truly wins either type of war. There is, in both cases, wasted suffering, and both sides lose, as compared to having NO war at all. What they do NOT have in common, is that in the case of trade wars, unilateral surrender (of the smart side) makes ALL of the sense in the world!
Also this: The interests of the people v/s the politicians is different. Under trade war, politicians get to pick winners and losers. Which industry get punished, and which gets rewarded? Time to rewards friends and punish enemies! With free trade, the people "need" the politicians much less! So ass usual, stupid people (who want to be "protected" from the BAD "other people", the UN-Americans who might like to trade freely with us), are pussy-grabbers, and the politicians are the pussy-grabber-grabbers, who grab us ALL... Right in our pussy-grabbers! STOP letting them do that!!! Get RID of your useless, senseless self-righteous pussy-grabbers!
Can 63% of Americans even accurately define free trade?
ONLY Der JesseBahnFarter-Fuhrer and Der TrumpfenFarter-Fuhrer can TRULY and accurately define free trade!!!!! All others must simply OBEY!!!! All HAIL Der JesseBahnFarter-Fuhrer and Der TrumpfenFarter-Fuhrer!!!
As indicated below, by they're own analysis, they've got the reading practically inverted.
If you take a/the most pro-globalist, one-world-order concept of 'free trade' people support it but are concerned that it might raises costs. If you take the most pro-individual, pro-liberty definition of 'free trade' they support it less than the increased cost of government-managed global 'free' trade.
Neat idea: In context, "We have always been at war with Eastasia." doesn't forbid and actually kinda connotes "We have always traded freely with Eastasia." Winston even brings the statement up in reference to an immediately previous alliance with Eastasia against Eurasia.
We have always been at war with Russia and traded financial resources, military technology, and political intelligence freely with NATO allies like Ukraine.
Does "you give me free money and I'll trade you my vote" count?
Does this 63% agree on what "free trade" even means? Looks like, as is pointed out above, the survey didn't even address free trade, just asked about trade and tariffs in general. So is it reasonable to conclude from this that people care about free trade over a more managed system of trade among countries?
Wait, wait, wait...
When half of the respondents were asked if they "favor or oppose the United States increasing trade with other nations," 63 percent were in favor. (The other half were instead asked if they "favor or oppose people in the United States trading more with people from other nations," to which a smaller majority of 53 percent responded favorably.)
JFC. And this is the news you spin your story to a "libertarian" audience on? You "Why don't wet roads cause rain" motherfuckers are the opposite of a think tank. You're a collective brain fart.
Now ask them if they support “free trade” DOMESTICALLY.
The question is blatantly stupid and manipulative from its very premise.
Until there is ZERO-TAX on DOMESTIC trade; “free trade” internationally is really just saying...
“America LAST! Foreigners FIRST!”
So then are ye telling us that the USA-gathered tariffs (taxes) are collected and then paid to foreign governments instead of the USA Government Almighty? THIS is what “America LAST! Foreigners FIRST!” would imply!
Humorously. That is exactly what they do. Needless to say without flipping the subject (“free trade”) on it’s head it means trying to support “free trade” ONLY for foreign markets but not domestic markets.
"Unilateral surrender" is EXACTLY what we should do, in trade wars! "You fools taxed the shit out of your people, so we're gonna tax the shit out of our people" is the other choice, instead of "Unilateral surrender"!!! The best way to fight a "war of cutting off your nose, to spite your face, more and better than the next guy", is to NOT play the game at ALL!!!
Well yes, yet another choice is to use military force (war) to take over the whole planet, to make EVERYONE obey a "totally free" world, to include trade, butt... Don't sign me up! That won't work, either!
It is because our political process favors the views of the extremes of both parties.
Sad but true! Primaries in which everyone can run (any party) in one single unified primary, and the top two vote-getters duke it out in the fall... Allowing two "Team D" or two "Team R" candidates to duke it out in the fall, in some cases... would "fence out" much of the tribalism pretty quickly!
Used to be preach to the party faithful during the primaries, but to the public center in the general. No longer. Now it’s preach to the party faithful during the primaries, but to the party fringes in the general.
This is why Trump picked Vance and Harris picked Walz. Their picks aren't there to shore up the middle, they're there to shore up the fringe.
Politicians seem to thrive on the divisive and so trade with other countries is portrayed as bad, as is immigration. Unfortunately, no matter what the public thinks it also reacts to the divisive arguments. The fact Americans benefit greatly from foreign trade and from immigration. The public knows this but is too easily swayed by the divisive. The public needs to stop reading bumper stickers and start reading facts in the newspaper.
It doesn’t take a bumper sticker to be smart enough to realize if you import all those that made Mexico a sh*thole you’ll get a sh*thole. Dumb*ss.
The foreign exporters do NOT pay the tariff. That tax is levied on the domestic importer, who then passes the cost along to domestic consumer. Domestic producers follow suit. So the price for that good rises by the size of the tariff. I mean, duh.
Yes, it "helps" the domestic producer in the long run, who gets to raise its prices because it no longer has to compete with a lower price. But in the long run it's a siphon on the economy that benefits only politicians. But populists don't fucking care, they just pretend that an impoverished America with low growth rate is somehow Great Again.
Until Tariffs are over 80% the dis-advantaged are the DOMESTIC manufacturers forking over 80% in taxes just because they're domestic. Yes; Taxes are rotten in this nation. Billing those taxes entirely on domestic and ignoring importers (zero-tax) is just telling American Manufacturing where to stick it.
It's all about power. The pols are happy with a model for the economy as a big machine with lots of buttons, knobs and switches, and all they have to do is push, twist, and flip them to control it. The pols love control: of the economy, of us, of anything they can get their hands on.