Rationalizing Ruin: How Identity Politics Drives Support for Harmful Tariff Policies
It was once the rallying cry of America First: slap tariffs on China, bring back jobs, protect American industries. To Trump supporters, tariffs represented strength. The language was simple. We were being ripped off. Trump would fix it.
But in 2024 and 2025, something changed. Prices rose. Supply chains shifted. Farmers suffered, and the stock market shook. Yet, instead of reevaluating the policy, MAGA loyalists doubled down with a new line: "This is a necessary correction." "Liberals panic when things get hard." "It's market healing, not failure."
This article explores how MAGA justifies economic policies that hurt their own base, and why their rationalizations follow a deeply predictable psychological script.
Tariffs as Identity, Not Policy
To understand why MAGA clings to tariffs, we must first understand that the policy is no longer just an economic tool. It has become a symbol of identity. Tariffs are not debated as economic levers, but embraced as cultural resistance, resistance to globalization, to elite consensus, to the "liberal world order."
Research into Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) shows that those high in RWA gravitate toward leaders who promise order and strength over nuance and deliberation (Altemeyer, 1998; Hetherington & Weiler, 2009). Tariffs, framed by Trump as bold action against foreign threat, satisfy that need for decisive dominance.
And for those high in Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)—who believe social hierarchies should be preserved, tariffs feel like a way to protect America's position at the top of the global food chain (Choma et al., 2016; Duckitt, 2010).
This is not about whether tariffs work. It is about whether they feel like an assertion of control. That feeling of control becomes its own form of validation, especially in a populist movement where the language of strength and nationalism outweighs measurable success. MAGA adherents do not evaluate tariffs as economists do. They measure them by the emotional reaction they invoke, defiance, pride, a sense of taking America back.
Tariffs thus become litmus tests for loyalty rather than levers of policy. Even when the economic outcomes are demonstrably negative, the symbolic power of tariffs keeps them sacrosanct. A loss on paper becomes a win in narrative.
From Results to Rationalizations
When Trump first imposed tariffs on Chinese goods under his 1st term, MAGA hailed it as a masterstroke. But studies from the National Bureau of Economic Research show that tariffs led to increased costs for U.S. consumers and decreased employment in some manufacturing sectors. (Fajgelbaum et al., 2020; Amiti, Redding & Weinstein, 2019).
Still, the response was not reconsideration. It was reframing.
This is classic motivated reasoning: when outcomes contradict beliefs, the brain rationalizes away the discomfort (Kunda, 1990; Nyhan & Reifler, 2010). Instead of admitting the tariffs backfired, MAGA shifted to calling the pain a "necessary market correction"—a noble sacrifice for a better America.
This echoes system justification theory: even when suffering, individuals will defend policies if they believe the suffering preserves the social order (Jost et al., 2004).
In fact, defending economic loss can become an act of virtue. Pain is repackaged as patriotism. Just as wartime rationing once became a symbol of unity, enduring inflation is spun as a small price for national pride. This logic is psychologically self-soothing. It allows supporters to avoid cognitive dissonance by converting failure into fuel for moral endurance.
"The Market Will Fix Itself"
One of the newest defenses is that the market needs to be "shocked" into realignment. It’s an echo of supply-side dogma, but with a conspiratorial twist. As Sunstein notes in Republic Divided, many MAGA followers distrust mainstream economists and media, preferring populist narratives where elites have lied for decades (Sunstein, 2021).
Their rejection of expert consensus isn't ignorance. It’s identity protection. As epistemic closure research shows, when information threatens core beliefs, it is dismissed out of self-preservation (Nyhan et al., 2010; Stanovich, 2011). The result? An echo chamber where economic damage becomes proof of patriotism.
In this framework, the worse things get, the more they feel justified. The narrative becomes: the economy is suffering because the globalist machine is being dismantled. The disruption isn’t a sign of failure, it’s evidence of progress. Any expert who says otherwise is part of the enemy class.
This inversion of expertise creates a cognitive environment where suffering becomes synonymous with success. As long as Trump frames tariffs as part of the war for American greatness, their negative effects will be rationalized as growing pains of national rebirth.
Authoritarian Resilience and the Cult of Sacrifice
Much like war efforts or religious martyrdom, MAGA's tariff rhetoric now includes phrases like "short-term pain for long-term gain" or "we need to suffer now to rebuild." This taps into what Altemeyer and Adorno both called the authoritarian sacrifice drive: the willingness to endure hardship to restore imagined greatness (Adorno et al., 1950; Altemeyer, 1998).
This is also part of the collective narcissism Golec de Zavala described—where the group sees itself as morally superior but constantly under siege, justifying defensive aggression and economic hardship as righteous struggle (Golec de Zavala, 2020).
Tariffs then become less about economic utility and more about demonstrating resilience. The pain becomes a crucible of faith. Those who endure are true patriots. Those who complain are traitors or weak. This framing is crucial: it transforms critique into betrayal.
Moreover, authoritarian followers are often drawn to leaders who demand loyalty through sacrifice. Trump’s rhetoric of national suffering, of winning by losing—fits that model. Tariffs are the tool, but the mechanism is obedience.
Conclusion: It's Not the Economy, It's the Myth
Tariffs were never just about trade. For MAGA, they were always about domination, resistance, and identity preservation. Even when empirical data shows economic decline, the need to feel righteous, strong, and persecuted outweighs the evidence.
Understanding this reaction isn’t about condescension,it’s about strategy. You cannot counter irrational loyalty with facts alone. You must unpack the myth-making machine behind it. Until then, no amount of charts or studies will break through the armor of belief.
References
Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The Authoritarian Specter.
Amiti, M., Redding, S. J., & Weinstein, D. E. (2019). The impact of the 2018 tariffs on prices and welfare. NBER Working Paper No. 25672.
Choma, B. L., Hodson, G., et al. (2016). Social dominance orientation and economic inequality.
Duckitt, J. (2010). Differentiating social and ideological attitudes: SDO and RWA.
Fajgelbaum, P. D., Goldberg, P. K., Kennedy, P. J., & Khandelwal, A. K. (2020). The return to protectionism. NBER Working Paper No. 25638.
Golec de Zavala, A. (2020). Collective narcissism and intergroup attitudes.
Hetherington, M. J., & Weiler, J. D. (2009). Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics.
Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin.
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail. Political Behavior.
Stanovich, K. (2011). Rationality and the Reflective Mind.
Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Republic Divided: Democracy in the Age of Social Media.