Conspiracy Theories and Tariffs
Tactics of Conspiracy Theorists
Ben Shapiro did a very important segment on his show about the growing influence of conspiracy theorists in political discourse and their dishonest tactics. I would recommend everyone take the time to listen to the whole thing, but to summarize:
Shapiro explains the difference between conspiracies and conspiracy theories, specifically how those now consistently pushing the latter are intentionally deceiving their audience with dishonest tactics.
Shapiro points to some tactics that make dishonest conspiracy theorists easy to identify:
Fake Questions: Posing a loaded question while pretending to be a neutral observer to shift the burden from the person claiming everyone else (e.g., "Why can't we talk about this?"—asks the person talking about it nonstop—or "Why won't they admit this happened?"—referring to something that never occurred).
Promote Motive Over Evidence: Suggesting motive is more important than evidence or sufficient evidence to justify a conspiracy (Ben points to the example of LBJ being involved in Kennedy’s assassination simply because he became president as a result).
Appeal to Ignorance: Arguing something must be true because it hasn’t been proven untrue.
Fake Evidence: Using cherry-picked evidence or claiming secret/anonymous sources. For example, Israel is mentioned 4 times and Cuba is mentioned 200 times, but only focusing on the 4 mentions of Israel to claim it must be the source.
Appeal to Authority: Because experts are no longer trusted due to the dishonesty of traditional gatekeepers, conspiracy theorists instead find alternative "experts" to push narratives with little evidence, relying on the audience to simply trust these new experts.
Rely on Confirmation Bias: Dismissing all contradictory evidence while finding patterns in unconnected evidence. For example, ignoring the overwhelming evidence that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11 to point to random data points and claim someone else must be responsible.
Fake Defenses: When confronted with a demand for evidence:
Making claims that are not falsifiable by revising the conspiracy each time evidence contradicts it.
Treating denials as evidence that something is true.
Citing a million unrelated facts to distract from the lack of evidence for the actual theory.
Weaponizing doubt by finding minor errors or confusion related to an event and then citing that as definitive proof that everything about the event must be false.
The overall point is that skepticism is good, but it is not the same as simply buying into baseless conspiracies without evidence.
If people keep telling you they are "just asking questions" without providing real answers supported by evidence, they probably aren’t interested in the truth.
On Tariffs
My general view is that tariffs are a bad policy that makes countries poorer. When people ask questions like, “Why would other countries impose tariffs if they’re so bad?” they often overlook the fact that those countries generally have much weaker economies than ours. Tariffs hurt the consumers of the country imposing them and the producers of the target country. Since the U.S. has the strongest consumer base in the world, we suffer disproportionately more than others when tariffs are applied.
Can tariffs ever be useful or at least be argued for? Yes.
National Security: There are certain products we need to manufacture domestically due to national security concerns tied to over-reliance on adversaries like China. Semiconductors are a prime example, as is defense equipment. We can’t depend on untrustworthy countries for items critical to our existence, as they could cut off supply at any moment. I’d prefer we address this by incentivizing domestic production rather than simply raising costs on foreign goods, but it’s a legitimate justification. This could support the case for targeted tariffs.
Negotiating Tactic for Fair Trade: Tariffs harm both sides, so it makes sense to want to eliminate them. Temporarily imposing tariffs on our side to pressure other countries into lowering their own tariffs and trade barriers can be justified, despite causing short-term pain. This has been a key defense of the Trump approach to tariffs.
However, last week’s announcement and subsequent commentary suggest the Trump administration isn’t limiting itself to these rationales. Instead, it seems to be operating on a fundamental misunderstanding of trade—namely, that trade deficits are inherently evidence of unfairness and must be corrected.
To put it simply: The right has spent years correctly rejecting the left’s logic that we need equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity or that unequal outcomes are themselves proof of unfairness or discrimination. Yet, this is precisely the logic the Trump administration appears to be adopting on trade, and the equation for tariffs announced last week is based on it.
The Trump tariff formula had little to do with the actual tariff rates imposed by other countries and was based largely on trade deficits. The goal of this approach is equal outcomes in trade, not equal opportunity. Oren Cass inadvertently highlighted part of the disconnect when he publicly asked how “comparative advantage” contributes to trade deficits—apparently not grasping that many countries, especially poorer ones, have natural resources we want and benefit from, while their consumers simply can’t afford U.S.-made products. This means we’ll have trade deficits with those countries no matter how we manipulate tariff rates. That doesn’t mean the trade we do with them is somehow unfair or bad.
Trump has a fundamentally flawed understanding of both trade and alliances. He does not grasp the concept of mutually beneficial relationships. There has to be a winner and a loser in every relationship and in his mind a trade deficit is proof of the loser.