Well, March 4th came and went. It was the day that President Trump declared that the tariffs on the US’s closest trading partners would take effect. There would be no way to avoid them this time, he said.
Except there would be. Just yesterday (as of this writing), it was announced that tariffs would not go into effect — yet — in the auto industry. All they had to do was ask nicely. Sigh.
Many, including me, thought that we would ultimately reach a deal before the date arrived. We didn’t, because there was no deal to be made, nothing Trump wanted, or thought he wanted, that we hadn’t yet given him.
As a negotiating tool, then, the tariffs seem to make little sense. They will almost certainly hurt US consumers, and will do nothing to stem the tide of drugs more than we already have that the U.S. demands. You’d think someone so well-versed in business would understand the basics of supply and demand, after all. Meanwhile, according to official measures, the possibility of a U.S. recession is increasing.
RIP, NAFTA and USMCA
Most bewildering of all, though, is his stepping out of a North American trade deal that he himself closed. At the time — during his first term — USMCA was hailed as a great achievement by the same person who now wants to toss it out the window.
For someone who talks constantly about what’s fair or not, he does not seem to have a real grasp on what it means. When talking about himself, “fair” means “good for me.” It’s unclear what he thinks “fair” for those affected by his behavior means. More than trying to “protect America,” the tariffs seem to be more for the purpose of chest-beating. “I am in charge; try to appease me.”
And oh, we’re trying.
But we’re also prepared to not be successful. And as any boxer will tell you, ducking and weaving is a big chunk of the game.
Like it or not, trade interconnectedness is our home now
If you’ve been reading my column for any amount of time, you’ve probably got a fairly good idea of my own politics. I am a classic bleeding-heart liberal; really, a socialist. When NAFTA took effect and the U.S. moved many of its manufacturing jobs to Mexico, I frowned. Many of the communities those manufacturing jobs were lifted from have never recovered, and people suffered greatly; in many cases, they never economically recovered, which I think many political analysts would agree contributed both to the “deaths of despair” and the economic malaise of a previously-stable blue collar class that helped, at least the first time around, to bring Trump into power in the first place.
Now, we stand poised to cause that same kind of pain to Mexican workers. And if there’s one thing Trump has communicated to the world, it’s that deals with the U.S. no longer mean anything. A new president can just decide he doesn’t like them and pull out. That puts not just Mexico, but the entire world in a tricky spot.
Mexican workers, of course, were not at fault for their US counterparts’ suffering; it was the companies trying to make a buck — or a lot more bucks — because that’s how the game of capitalism is played. Incidentally, it’s also why I really, really don’t like the game of capitalism. We need a new game.
But here we are. Nobody at the time asked me what I thought, and plus, I was 13. And besides, I’m older now and a realist: you have to start from where you are. Tearing everything down to rebuild later, caring not if people are trampled and maimed in the process, is childish and cruel. How about we not cause unnecessary pain?
Because the reality now is that virtually no country can stand alone when it comes to manufacturing, especially. You get minerals from this place, steel from this place, skilled hands in this other place — and even that’s a simplification. Whether we like it or not, we are now interconnected. Trying for a divorce at this point is akin to ripping conjoined twins from one another; it’s not going to end well, and everyone’s going to get hurt, if they survive at all.
Claudia, ducking and weaving with the best of them
As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, I believe that part of the reason Trump and Claudia “get along” so well is the standard disposition of all Mexican politicians: we know how to deal with gangsters down here. And Trump is a mob boss of a leader if there ever was one.
While we’re still not sure what will happen, we do know that Mexico, under President Sheinbaum’s leadership, stands at the ready. Ducking and weaving, yes. Cowering, no.
Among her Plans A, B, C, and D are a push toward a kind of Mexican nationalism that already lives on the surface. A “buy Mexican” campaign has already begun, complete with suggestions of Mexican stores and products to support.
Will this mean anything for how welcome “Trump’s people” are in Mexico? I suspect that, mostly, it will not. Unlike Americans, Mexicans seem to be pretty adept at being able to tell the difference between people from a place and their respective governments.
Post Script
There’s a gruesome part in the dark comedy The Ice Harvest, about a Christmas-time heist. In a home in the middle of the night, the wife of a gangster discovers another character has broken into her house. Her husband comes down, and immediately shoots his wife. “I think you’re overestimating how much I love my wife,” he says.
That’s kind of what it feels like for all of us to be at Trump’s mercy right now. Thankfully, and sadly, Mexico has experience dealing with this kind of dude.
Sarah DeVries is a writer and translator based in Xalapa, Veracruz. She can be reached through her website, sarahedevries.substack.com.
