What if Americans were consulted on tariffs?

This is Blog no 97

                                                                        AI image

Admittedly, it’s a pretty tendentious question!

After all, President Trump was democratically elected and had made his intention to levy tariffs perfectly plain. No informed observer here or in the USA could plead ignorance of the President’s approach to international trade. Neither can his chaotic, unpredictable style have been a surprise.

And yet, the scale and nature of his ‘Liberation Day’ and its topsy-turvy aftermath causes legitimate concern – even among Republican supporters. Economists all agree there will be pain for American consumers, let alone the downturn that is likely from the uncertainty faced by businesses, large and small. Maybe too many had not quite appreciated the implications of this policy. Just because you vote for a candidate does not mean you have been consulted on every aspect of his or her policy platform. Consultation is not a vote; and a vote is not consultation!

In the British political culture, we are accustomed to many, if variable, national consultations. In the USA, this is unthinkable. Their politics works very differently. Over the Atlantic, voters are content to see high-profile individuals elected, carry out their policies and be answerable at the next election. The lobbying industry is immense, and the peddling of influence is legendary. At State level, there are more consultations especially within defined communities. At the federal level, however, with few exceptions, the nearest they get to our concept of consultation are Congressional Hearings – which are more theatre than listening exercises.

Despite these different traditions, caused as much by geography as by culture, the current situation prompts questions which face all democracies. When citizens and businesses are so obviously affected by macro-economic trends and policies, is there any purpose served by seeking their views?

What conceivable influence can ordinary people have on such global issues?                                                        Would it not be a waste of everyone’s time?

I believe there are at least three answers:-

1. It obliges consultors to explain their proposals.

   In a properly structured consultation, there is a requirement to outline precisely what is proposed and to    

   publish an impact assessment. It will not suffice just to call them ‘Wonderful’ without explaining why this

   would be. Right now, in the UK, it may well be that almost all the facts of the situation are the result of    

   matters beyond the control of current Ministers. But understanding their view of the likely consequences of

   various forms of trade policy response is something that DOES require explanation. So, the Government’s

   recent announcement of a four-week consultation (christened a ‘Call for input’) is a perfectly sensible

   process that enables it to communicate the details of the various options that might be available.

   A further benefit of such a process is that it forces consultors to understand their own proposals better, to

   anticipate reactions and work through the likely implications. Not sure the Trump administration buys into this

   best practice!

2. It secures a better-informed debate

   Based upon this, it is possible to conduct a public discourse. Not inevitable, but possible. You need sufficient

   publicity, and stakeholders need to be made aware of issues that might affect them. Ideally, you also need

   non-partisan media and independent journalists and academics willing to probe or challenge assertions

   made by consultors. There are other pre-conditions too, familiar to anyone who knows the Gunning

   Principles. There must be sufficient time and an opportunity for everyone who wishes to participate. A

   transparent debate diminishes (but does not eliminate) the likelihood of hidden agendas – where the

   consultation narrative conceals the true impact of proposals.

3. It identifies winners and losers.

    Nothing alerts people to threats and opportunities quite like a well-targeted consultation. In part this is

    because it is easy to overlook high-level policy changes or initiatives that do not, at first glance, appear to be

   relevant to YOU. In the UK, the classic example is infrastructure planning. Few people pay attention to

   Government National Policy Statements (NPSs) when out for consultation and are taken by surprise when

   they discover that key decisions have, in effect already been taken.

   It is not always obvious who gains and who suffers. Frequently, the least vocal and least influential are

   disproportionally impacted. It is one of the reasons why serious consultors take care with stakeholder

   mapping. In a well-designed consultation, a major aim is to engage widely so that a more accurate picture

   emerges and helps identify the extent to which mitigation measures might be needed.

   It would be presumptuous of us, from this side of the Atlantic, to suggest that the American public has been

   denied the advantages of this kind of dialogue. Even though our broadcast media is arguably somewhat one-

   sided, how many times have we recently heard stateside vox-pops and business-leaders complain that “We

   were not expecting this?” Indeed, the real cause of the distress experienced by many liberal-minded

   Americans may just stem from the bullying temperament of their new President and the White House

   opposition to any debate that questions his judgement. The American democratic model is certainly being

   stressed.

Our model is more consultative, but there are many things wrong with the way in which we consult. We have become over-committed to a single format, designed to assist difficult decision-making and traditionally supported by legal requirements and detailed bureaucratic Guidance.

Seeing what is happening in the USA should make us all appreciate our inherited consultative practices more – and encourage us to develop new and better ways to listen to people.

Had voters in America been consulted rather more about the specific issue of international trade tariffs, would it have made any difference? 

Who knows!

Rhion H Jones LL.B

13 April 2025

For more like this - free of charge - click here