Core Viewpoint - The recent decision by the U.S. Senate to terminate Trump's comprehensive tariff policy highlights the ongoing volatility of U.S. trade policy, which oscillates between protectionism and openness, driven by conflicting interests among various economic groups [2][3][4]. Group 1: The Eternal Struggle of Interest Groups - James Madison's insights in "The Federalist Papers" reveal that trade policy is fundamentally a conflict among different economic interest groups, including landowners, manufacturers, and financial sectors [3][4]. - The historical context shows that trade policy has been a source of intense political conflict in the U.S., as it directly impacts money and jobs, benefiting some industries while harming others [4][5]. Group 2: Historical Policy Shifts - U.S. trade policy has evolved through three distinct eras, each prioritizing different goals: revenue generation through tariffs, protection of domestic manufacturers, and reciprocal trade agreements to reduce barriers [8][9]. - Major external shocks, such as the Civil War and the Great Depression, have led to significant shifts in trade policy objectives, reflecting the political realignments of the time [9]. Group 3: Stability of Trade Policy - The stability of U.S. trade policy is influenced by the country's economic geography and political system, where different regions have specialized economic activities that shape their trade interests [11][12]. - The political structure makes it challenging to change established policies, leading to a tendency to maintain the status quo despite ongoing debates and conflicts among interest groups [11][12]. Group 4: The Interplay of Economics and Politics - Understanding U.S. trade policy requires an analysis of both economic and political factors, as historical and political contexts significantly influence policy outcomes [13][14]. - The book "The Conflict of Trade" serves as a comprehensive framework for understanding the complexities of U.S. trade policy, emphasizing the interplay of lobbying, regional interests, and political calculations [16].

Core Viewpoint - The recent decision by the U.S. Senate to terminate Trump's comprehensive tariff policy highlights the ongoing volatility of U.S. trade policy, which oscillates between protectionism and openness, driven by conflicting interests among various economic groups [2][3][4]. Group 1: The Eternal Struggle of Interest Groups - James Madison's insights in "The Federalist Papers" reveal that trade policy is fundamentally a conflict among different economic interest groups, including landowners, manufacturers, and financial sectors [3][4]. - The historical context shows that trade policy has been a source of intense political conflict in the U.S., as it directly impacts money and jobs, with certain industries benefiting while others suffer [4][5]. Group 2: Historical Policy Shifts - U.S. trade policy has evolved through three distinct eras, each prioritizing different goals: revenue generation through tariffs, protection of domestic manufacturers, and reciprocal trade agreements to reduce barriers [8][9]. - Major external shocks, such as the Civil War and the Great Depression, have significantly shifted the focus of trade policy, demonstrating the influence of political realignments on trade objectives [9]. Group 3: Stability of Trade Policy - The stability of U.S. trade policy is attributed to the country's economic geography and political system, where different regions have specialized economic activities that shape their trade interests [11][12]. - The political structure makes it challenging to change established policies, leading to a tendency to maintain the status quo despite ongoing debates and conflicts among interest groups [11][12]. Group 4: The Role of Political and Economic Factors - Understanding U.S. trade policy requires an analysis of both economic and political factors, as historical context and the legislative process significantly influence policy outcomes [13][14]. - The book "The Conflict of Trade" emphasizes the importance of examining the political and economic interactions that shape trade policy, rather than focusing solely on specific policy outcomes [14][15].