CSIS - Center for Strategic and International Studies Inc.

08/19/2024 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 08/19/2024 12:10

Cognitive Dissonance Strikes Again

Cognitive Dissonance Strikes Again

Photo: Klaus Vedfelt/DigitalVision/Getty Images

Commentary by William Alan Reinsch

Published August 19, 2024

One of the intriguing aspects of the public trade debate has long been cognitive dissonance-the ability to hold conflicting viewpoints simultaneously. This has been illustrated recently in two polls, one from the Cato Institute and one from the Pew Research Center, that together provide details on what the American people think about trade these days. I don't have enough space in this column to go over the many different charts, but I do want to provide some results that seem particularly interesting, not to mention confusing. For those of you that listen to the Trade Guys podcast, these polls will be the subject of next week's episode as well.

The Cato top line is that Americans continue to believe trade is mostly good for the economy-66 percent said so (24 percent thought it was mostly bad). However, in the Pew poll, 59 percent said the United States had lost more than it gained from trade. Pew also examines partisan divisions on issues and found Republicans were more negative about trade (73 percent said the United States had lost more than it gained), while Democrats were more optimistic (50 percent said the United States had gained more than it lost). Apparently, Cato and Pew were not polling the same people.

The Cato poll became more interesting when it asked respondents to agree or disagree with a series of statements. Here are some highlights:

  • "Americans shouldn't be allowed to trade with people in countries that allow unsafe and unfair working conditions to persist." Seventy-seven percent agreed.
  • "US citizens should be free to buy and sell to mostly anyone in the world without government interference." Sixty-eight percent agreed.
  • "Globalization and trade with other countries has hollowed out the American middle class." Sixty-three percent agreed.
  • "Americans are getting cheated by U.S. trade agreements with other countries." Sixty-one percent agreed.
  • "The US becomes richer and safer as its people trade with people in countries throughout the world." Sixty-one percent agreed.

Cognitive dissonance indeed.

Another interesting question asked in the Cato poll was whether respondents would support a tariff on blue jeans at various price points. When no price points were provided, 68 percent of respondents said "yes." But support dropped sharply when it was pointed out that the tariff would increase the price. So, if the jeans were $5 more expensive, only 58 percent supported a tariff. If they were $10 more expensive, only 34 percent would support a tariff, and if they were $25 more expensive only 19 percent would support a tariff. (There is a lesson here for former president Donald Trump, who has proposed a 10-20 percent tariff on everything. People might support it when he doesn't mention the cost, but when the cost is made evident, support drops dramatically.)

Finally, once again proving my long-held thesis that in trade, not just at the World Trade Organization, there is no rule against hypocrisy, Cato asked respondents if they would support a tariff on TV sets to boost production of televisions in the United States if Biden proposed it or if Trump proposed it. Here, the Democrats won the hypocrisy crown by a nose: 57 percent of Democrats would support a tariff if Biden proposed it, but only 35 percent would support the same tariff if Trump proposed it. For Republicans, 51 percent would support a Biden tariff, but 70 percent would support a Trump tariff. (There are ironies in this question. The United States has not had a significant television manufacturing industry since the 1970s, and a tariff is unlikely to restart one.)

One question I am always left with when I review poll data like this is whether any of it matters. In trade, the answer is probably not. One place where both the Cato and Pew polls agreed was the low priority Americans place on trade policy. The Cato poll asked respondents to list their top three issues out of sixteen. Globalization and trade came in last at only 1 percent. (The top three were inflation/prices, healthcare, and jobs and the economy.) The Pew poll asked respondents to categorize 20 issues as "top priority," "important but lower priority," "not too important," or "should not be done." Here again, trade ranked last in the top priority category with only 31 percent, although 57 percent did say it was important. This is consistent with previous Pew polls over at least the last 10 to 15 years, where trade has regularly been last or second to last in respondents' priorities. (Pew's top three were "strengthening economy," "defending against terrorism," and "reducing influence of money in politics.")

This is why politicians are often able to survive being out of sync with their constituents on trade. People have opinions on the subject, but they vote on other issues. Historically, trade was not a big issue in national elections until Trump put it on the front page in 2016 and kept it there ever since. This year, that will force his opponent to respond, and then we will learn whether Vice President Kamala Harris will depart from the last four years of Biden's trade policy. And, after the election, we will learn whether it made any difference.

William Reinsch holds the Scholl Chair in International Business at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

Commentary is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

© 2024 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.

Image
Senior Adviser and Scholl Chair in International Business