President trump past leaders let china take the crown jewels of american industry. Now, we are finally responding to years of chronic trade abuses by defending our workers with tariffs, and anything else that is necessary. Because nobody is going to steal our businesses, nobody will close our factories, and nobody will close our plants anymore. They are all coming back. [applause] susan President Trump has popularized the debate over tariffs in our country once again. But how long throughout our history have tariffs been a subject of political debate . Peter tariffs have been the topic of discussion from the beginning. Tariffs make great rhetoric. Really power people up. One could argue that the United States was founded on a tariff battle. Not american tariffs, but opposition to english tariffs. Susan we will spend some time we started asking questions about the tariff debate and we thought we would bring the audience along to learn more about the role of tariffs and American History. Before we get into the meat of this, what is a tariff . Peter at its base level it is a tax. There are many different kinds of tariffs. You will hear about protectionist tariffs, punitive tariffs. But at the end of the day, the difference between those tariffs is minimal. It depends on if you are paying the tariff, or paying for the tariffs. The most basic level is there are two ways that tariffs are adjudicated. One is that it is the percentage of the cost of the item being imported. The other is a fixed cost. When the United States was first founded, most of the tariffs were 5 of the value of an object coming in. There were some things that were specific. It was i think . 10 on a gallon of wine. They did not make a difference if it was good wine or bad wine, it was . 10 a gallon. Susan overall, with regard to tariffs, are there winners and losers as segments of society when they are imposed . Peter tariffs are fascinating in that they are very mysterious. Really, i think i like analogies. Thinking about tariffs is thinking about a big plate of spaghetti. And Everybody Loves spaghetti. Tariffs are very complicated and difficult to understand. Its almost impossible to pull a strand of spaghetti out of the plate without touching the others. Depending on your perspective, different people have remarkably different ideas about whether they are effective or not effective. People argue about that forever. They are taxes. It is very unclear. One thing that is absolutely clear about tariffs is the rhetoric about tariffs is extremely successful. This is something that politicians throughout the history of this country have used very effectively to get elected. Being in favor of or being opposed to tariffs. Susan before we get into the founding of the nation and the tariff battles at the earliest days, i want to learn more about you. So you spent much of your career at the American History museum, what is your job there . Peter i am a curator. I take care that a variety of of a variety of different collections. I am the project director for the American Enterprise exhibition, which is the exhibit that looks at the history of the nation, of the people through the story of business and working people. Susan at this network we talk to academic historians, you are a public historian. What is your mission . Peter my job as a public historian is to get people excited about history, get people excited about thinking and learning. And the mission is not so much to tell people what is right or wrong, or specific dates, but to make them understand that any topic is complicated and involved. And tariffs are probably the perfect example of this. No one understands tariffs. Even the people involved will occasionally own up to the fact that they are very hard to decipher. For the public, whats really important is to know that tariffs have huge effects, and its very unclear what those effects will be. So unintended consequences really are associated with tariffs quite often. Susan since the Trump Administration has brought tariffs back to the forefront, have you changed the way you talk about them in your exhibition . Peter no. The smithsonian is apolitical. Its important for us to represent all sides of the argument. We are excited that people are interested in tariffs, because it is a business story, and it makes people lean in more. But we really are not influenced by any one groups interest for or against something. Susan but if people are generally more interested in the topic, you make it easier to find . Peter as topics change, different portions of exhibition become more engaging. If you go down and listen to peoples conversations, they are sometimes more heated than they were in the past. Susan we have a few of the items and you can explain how they tell the story of tariffs. But how did you get started in all this . Peter in terms of Business History . Susan yeah, and your interest in doing this for a profession. Peter for me, if you are interested in technology, i am a historian of technology, the aspect of it that touches people, how their lives are changed by technological innovation is important. The role of business in that story is complicated. For me, as a historian, that complication is really delightful. Understanding history is very gray. Maybe a conspiracy is actually true, that people have alternative motives, they will do one thing and Say Something else. It is a great learning experience that you can apply to the future. Susan what sparked your initial interest in taking this direction in your history studies . Peter well, i have always done Industrial History. I am a big fan of big, heavy greasy things. Being able to do Industrial History really requires you to look at business, to think about it, who the people are and how labor is being formed. Giving agency to all the participants. Economists are great people. They write wonderful books that are filled with great numbers that are often correct. But, for a historian, understanding the anecdotal part. Why at the wto, why the protest in 1990 in seattle, why they were marching in turtle suits . It is just a fascinating time. Susan you made the point that the nation was born over tariffs. So what is your point there . Peter the United States, trade is what is really important. Tariffs are a huge element of trade because they have become a bar to importing, and occasionally exporting more. The United States, as a set of largely british colonies, was interested in trade. It existed in a mercantile system. So the british were saying you must send all this back to the mother country, we will turn it into finished goods and then you can buy it back at a higher price. And people wanted to trade, they wanted to do the value added. They wanted to trade not only with england, but be able to trade with germany, with australia, with china. We have a big section and our exhibition that looks at the china trade in the 1840s. And there were a series of tariffs that were put on to citizens of the u. S. , the stamp act would be one example. That you had to pay a tax for any type of document. Ea had a huge bounty that was put on it. Susan which led to the Boston Tea Party . Peter correct. Americans were unhappy about having to pay for that extra tax that was put on their tea. And sometimes they sent it back to england. Sometimes they locked it up in warehouses. In the case of boston, you know, a violent act, they destroyed the tea and through some of it into the harbor. Susan in the colonial period was the u. S. A producer of anything other than Agricultural Products . It was not the United States yet, were the colonies . Peter the british colonies were certainly exporting a lot of food goods. Wood was very important. But trade itself was very important. That, shipbuilding because of the amount of wood of skilled craftsmen, you could build ships. And being part of that trade. So we always talk about merchants. The first section of our exhibition is the merchant era, which is 1770s to the 1850s. And we call that the merchant era. What we are saying is not merchants in the notion of somebody behind a store counter, but a merchant in terms of a trader, somebody buying cargo and moving it around. So the colonists were very involved, some were very involved in merchant trade. Of course most of them were in agriculture. The time of jefferson, which is much later after the country was founded. Probably 80 of americans were involved in agriculture in one form or another. Susan so if people were to understand the roots of the american revolution, would you say they were in equal parts political and economic about trade . Peter there are many different many different causations for the revolution. But the United States, the culture of the u. S. Had a very fine look at business, at making money, at creating opportunities throughout its history. One of the things that our exhibition does is argues big big ideas for the United States, for thinking about the mentality and what drives people. That is the notions of opportunity, innovation, competition, and common good. These are the credos, the heartfelt bases of the people of the United States that separates them from many other countries. That notion of opportunity is really, at its heart, is american capitalism. The notion of common good is really american democracy. It really pushes for independence, for liberty, leave me alone, those great things are felt in that notion of democracy. But also opportunity. The chance to make money and do things. Susan one of the items from your exhibit that we want to show people from that period is the teapot. How would this have been used in society at that time . Peter this is just a wonderful piece on so many different levels. This is the english actually selling the fact that they are in trouble. The stamp act was much vilified in the u. S. And so people had an option of what types of pots they would have for their tea. Tea was a very important thing drink in the u. S. And this was a piece that represented that political thought, that tea drinking is often associated with politics. With interchange about concepts. Ideas and concepts. But what makes this delightful is that it is made in england and was made for export. So at the time, the Industrial Revolution is taking place, mechanization is taking off, and the potteries in england are becoming bigger and bigger and they need to expand their market. So they are very interested in appealing to Anyone Around the world. The American Market is certainly substantial. They make things that are in orderg themselves to make a sale, so there are many levels of interest involved in that. Susan another piece from that period is a dress that is for ascribed to Martha Washington . Peter this is a great dress. Gown. This is chinese silk. Silk at this time is imported. It really talks about the international kind of trade. If you look at the early period in the United States, there is a lot of conversation about the , that weavingun fabric, and this is a very american ideology. And by the 1850s, americans are looking back, somewhat romantically, at an earlier period they are talking about the age of homespun. The yankee woman spinning cotton, spinning silk and making for whatever and making fabric. But that dress goes to speak to the fact that International Trade, even in the time of george washington, is very significant and important. Susan so if you were a politician of the era, your choice of clothing fabric might be a political statement . Peter oh absolutely. If you look at Benjamin Harrisons wife, her gown that she wears to the inaugural of harrison is silk, but it is woven in the United States, and it is emblazoned with icons of the nation. The burr oak and things like that. Keeley is a congressman, very big protectionist, he was very careful to always Wear Clothing that was american made. Only by america. America first, and made, made in the usa is something that has been around for a long time. Susan what are we to make of the fact that the first piece of legislation passed by the congress when we signed the constitution to become a nation on july 4, 1789, sign into place on washington, placed a 5 tariff on most imported goods. Peter that totally makes sense, because any government needs money to operate. There is no income tax at this point. There has to be some source of revenue. Tariffs in this early period, really up until the 1913 is it needs to be revenuegenerating. If you are going to have a federal government, this is the argument between hamilton and jefferson, is how strong should the federal government be. If you will have a federal government, you need to be able to build things and do things. And that means funds. Some money is coming from land sales, but revenue from tariffs is one of the big drivers of government. Susan so Alexander Hamiltons secretary of the treasury at that point. He is a leading voice for tariffs. Can you talk about how he promoted the idea, and what the political debates were between his group, the federalists, and jeffersons party, who had a different point of view. Peter jefferson was a states rights, really had a different vision for the nation, really seeing the yeoman farmer as the quintessential american. Sandwiched between the notion of what jefferson probably would talk about the savagery of native americans, and the evil aristocrats of england, which would be factory workers. What he saw was the yeoman farmer, the connection to the earth as a great thing. Localcause of that saw control as important. On the other part they sought saw manufacturing and cities as the future. As such, creating an economic platform where you have tariffs to protect those infant industries, was really critical. Theyn this time period, really critical, socting thos protecting those industries is a reasonable thing. Later on, people use the same rhetoric, but its tougher to say whether it is measured in later years as fairly used as a justification for taxes. Susan so this this period of time, in the general sense, the jeffersonian democrats and then ultimately the whigs, the jeffersonian democrats were low tariff people and the whigs were high tariff people. Peter right. The farmers, throughout much of American History, the farmers of the south are not keen on tariffs because they rarely help them. They increase the cost of goods. And occasionally they will protect them, but jefferson was not for tariffs. Jefferson was not for creating a big government. The coffers was not something he was offered. He eventually has to eat his words and become a person who put tariffs into place, but not initially. Hamilton is looking at supporting the urban northeast with factories that are located and the tariffs are protecting them. The efficiency in the united state certainly at this point in the late 1700s is not very great. And caused of labor in the u. S. Is always extremely high. This is one of the, well, maybe two things you can say about the u. S. Throughout the entire history, there is a lot of land and not many people. And because of that, labor is consistently very high. And in the u. S. , people keep turning to new techniques, greater efficiency machines in order to compete with other countries, like england, that had lower labor costs. Susan as we move into the 19th century, a major figure is henry in the early part of it is henry clay. He also had this concept called the american system. What should we know about that period of time. Henry clays role in what his philosophies were . Peter he is an interesting character that comes out of kentucky. So you think he would be respecting the southern notion of being opposed to tariffs. But, in fact, he is a protectionist and his really promoting tariffs. In order to get people on board with the idea of tariffs, he argues the american system. Which has really three elements to it. One, that you charge these high tariffs that will protect industries. That you create a central bank in order to create an Economic System that is easier to have monetary exchange. And this appeals to both manufacturers, and to a degree, it appeals to the southern growers, the plantation owners, because they are, of course, selling their cotton abroad. But he also promotes infrastructure. He says that if we charge these tariffs, if we are taxing americans on these goods, raising the price on the goods, that we will take that money and we will turn around and improve canals. We will build roads. We will make navigation better. And this, in fact, will help everybody. And so he puts together this threepart alliance and tries to get people on board. He is a really interesting person. Persuasive. His campaign medallion from 1844 is one of my favorite things in our exhibition. Susan well, lets show it right now, because henry clay always had president ial ambitions, but was never successful at it. Peter it is a wonderful piece. The side with his face on it, you can see he is not very telegenic. That he doesnt really have the physique that people warm up to. The backside is the part that i love. This medallion was struck in 1844 and it was a campaign token. He would hand them out and say, vote for me. On the back you can see henry clay, the champion of a protective tariff, then there is an image. Visual analysis is something that curators love to do. And so looking at this tells you so much about what is going on. You can see the freighter of the sailing ship,sted is flying the american flag. You can see what line it is. In the foreground, you can see that there is industry. You have got and agricultural that you you have a plow with a sheaf of wheat hung over it. The argument being that the protective tariff will help the manufacturers who are shipping their goods, but it will also help the farmer. This is really a view. Because there is something not in the image. What is missing is a bale of cotton. In 1844, the biggest u. S. Export is cotton. And you can see that henry clay gave up on the south. Is appealinge to the west. In thinking about american politics, you always have to remember north and south is not the case. Its really north, south and west. Is that theent north does well, the factories do well, more people will have more money, and they will buy more food and the food is coming from the west. He is building an alliance between the farmers to the west and the manufacturers of the north and largely gives up on the people of the south who are not going to vote for him anyway. , that is a kentuckian so interesting. You told us the average tariffs in the early days were about 5 , maybe 10 . How high have the tariffs gotten by this time in general . Funding the whole government, right . Peter one of the major sources of income is tariffs. It changes at any given time. And it is really interesting to see how the as tariffs goes up, the revenue go up and then the budget sometimes swells to appoint that it is problematic figure out how to reduce some and they have to tariffs to bring it down. It would be an argument that art laffer would enjoy because the notion of having too much money for government makes it do things that you dont want. The period that starts to make tariffs take off is the war of 1812. The u. S. Is pulled into a war wars are going wars are going on, the u. S. Tries to stay neutral, but even with its declared neutrality, american ships are being pulled in by the english and sailors are being taken into duty. In jefferson really wants to stop this, creates an embargo that is a total failure. And eventually the war of 1812 breaks out. And for several years the u. S. Is at war with england. After that, the u. S. Continues to it needs money at the time , of course, so it has tariffs to generate money to fight a war, but it continues the tariffs at a high rate because they are in place and they are starting to protect the textile industries, which are suddenly in trouble. This nascent factory system born during the war of 1812, once the war is over and the british cap have their more sophisticated operations, they can bring textiles back. The cotton and wool producers in the northeast are looking for protection and help. Susan so as the decade progresses, taxes increasing the sectionalism that is happening . Peter absolutely. It is important to remember that in the United States all politics are local. So while people talk about general trends and aspects of it, at the end of the day, tariffs are very local and very idiosyncratic. And that is why the notion of thinking about tariffs as a pile of spaghetti really makes sense. Because sometimes people that you think would be opposed to tariffs that you thought would be opposed to him is because it has a very reasonable kind of sensibility. The creating of tariffs starts not with the president , but in the ways and Means Committee in the house. And so you have representatives who are voted in every two years. Represent an apparently small district. And they are responding to not just the nation, but to what the district needs. The notion of porkbarrel is something that was true in the past, and it continues to be. People do favors for each other. So long rolling is what any g rolling is what any tariff politician will tell you, it is the key word, people are cutting deals. Sometimes the tariffs are for broad, national and philosophical reasons. Sometimes they are supporting a single operation. Susan as the sectionalism leaves us to the civil war, we bring lincoln into office. Lincoln was a student and great admirer of henry clay. Hig butbeen a wak became the republican when the party was founded. Where was Abraham Lincoln on tariffs . Peter lincoln wanted to keep the union together. The election of lincoln set a very strong signal to the south, to the founders. That was that their vote was not going to count. There had been a series of battles that were really so severe that south carolina, even before lincoln ran for the presidency, nullified the tariff and said we will not pay for it. In the government, the union stepped in with military force to say that you had to. When lincoln gets elected it is a sign that the powers for probusiness are very strong, and that those antique tariff policies are probably not going to be pushed as much. With the civil war, lincoln has to create revenue in order to fight the war. But it also suddenly means that the states were antitariffs are no longer at the table. They are no longer able to vote. So the people that were against tariffs go away. And the political balance changes considerably. Susan so after lincoln, if you look at the line of president s from lincoln all the way up until herbert hoover, there were a string of republican president s. Only broken by johnson, cleveland, and woodrow wilson, so we are very much in a protariff protectionist era. How did that contribute to the change in the American Economy . Peter how much you attribute to the tariffs and how much you attribute to other factors is always complex and nobody will ever know. But certainly in the latter half of the 1800s, tariffs are gigantic. You have really high tariffs. , would say it is really a question of large tariffs or even larger tariffs i would say it is really a question of large tariffs or even large tariffs. There is never a time of particularly low tariffs. By the 1850s the role is really recognizing the United States as an industrial power. There is a great desire to protect and service those manufacturing firms. And the tariffs are one element to it. Now, there is also tremendous improvements. There is technological change. There is Huge Investment in industry. So some of the push forward is coming from those sources as well. And so ascribing too much to tariffs is certainly risky, but it is fair to say that in terms of industry getting its way its golden period. Susan did they contribute to the gilded age millionaires . Peter they were very pleased to have tariffs protect them. An early example would be the building of the Transcontinental Railroad. The Transcontinental Railroad is heavily subsidized by the United States government. In office, with the southern votes away from the table, is able to push through a Pacific Railroad. The Pacific Railroad act of 1862 says the government will give a lot of land, will really encourage things, but by the way, you also have to use only americanmade iron and steel in the production of it. So even from, sort of great Infrastructure Projects like that, the american manufacturers are being looked out for by the government. Susan you talked about the fact that people should know about tariffs. Now it is the president. Then it was a house of representatives, ways and Means Committee and the big name was William Mckinley. What should we know . Peter he never saw a tariff he did not like. He was a huge proponent of them. Certainly pushed some of the most the mckinley tariff is one of the most aggressive tariffs going. Interestingly, sometimes tariffs have amazing effects. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that a tomato is a vegetable and not a fruit because of a tariff. It seems, yeah, it is sort of an odd story. Any botanists will tell you a tomato is a fruit. But the 1883 tariff put a tariff on vegetables and not fruits. And so an importer of vegetables in new york pointed out that the tomatoes he was bringing in from the caribbean were fruits and he did not have to pay has tariffs. The battle went on for quite some time. And eventually the Supreme Court ruled that tomatoes are actually vegetables. In it is an interesting ruling in that it had repercussions beyond just tomatoes themselves. Susan we have another campaign medallion, because William Mckinley also had president ial aspirations. It is another motif. In the coming is it 1888 election . The, is it the 1888 election . Is that right . Peter right. Here you can see the notion of being a proponent of a high tariffs is something that is really great, is virtuous. Susan this is Grover Cleveland versus Benjamin Harrison. They were on two different sides of it, with mckinley in the background as the chairman of the ways and Means Committee. So what are the politics we are looking at . Peter it is really about the west versus the interests of the south versus the northeast. And the story always remains the same of who benefits by the tariffs. There is also a long with the tariff argument at this point, it is also the notion about how open the country should be to people of other countries. And so it starts to become the ideology of tariff taxon tax on specific goods, but related to that is the control of people coming in as well. Susan if we can go back so people can see the text on screen, if we can bring this back up again. I want to read, old grover, mayor of buffalo and governor of new york favored tariff destiny. Manage destin Benjamin Harrison from a colonel to Brigadier General in the civil war. United states senator. When William Mckinley president , was he still happy about tariffs . Peter he was very happy about tariffs as president. That little break in the republicans domination, only because of very deep depressions. So this sort of push for tariffs remain. You often see on things like this the full lunch pail. When you look at when mckinley runs for the presidency is Campaign Poster has mckinley standing in front of a bank talking about how he wants to opens up the mills to labor. Speaking out to labor saying we will have more employment, you will have higher and better paying jobs if we have tariffs. It will be great to you. Very little appeal to consumers. Which is curious. Will aidfs, in theory, manufacturers, which should mean more employment and possibly higher wages. But tariffs always end up in greater costs for goods. In relatively little rhetoric about the consumer perspective. You will pay more for your chocolate. Or you will pay more for your plow. Susan the Republican Party in the early 20th century seems like they had a split over these economic interests. We will turn to the voice of jeffrey rosen. He is president of the constitution center, but he wrote a biography of William Howard taft. He tells us about the big debate in the Republican Party during the 1910s1920 era. Lets watch. [video clip] jeffrey tariffs are bubbling as a political issue and it splits the Republican Party. The party was traditionally devoted to protected tariffs for income but not protection. In other words, moderate tariffs in order to fund the government but not protect Certain Industries over the others. But tariffs naturally favored some people over others. Eastern manufacturers, glove manufacturers. It raised the raw material of goods. Within the Republican Party there are three camps. The stand pack republican who were led by joe cannon who want to keep it where it is and pander to their constituencies. The insurgents, progressive republicans who wanted to lower the tariffs, though not eliminated like the freetrade democrats. Middle. He [end of video clip] susan ultimately we get to the point of the time when the country moves away from tariffs and finds another way to fund the government, which is the income tax. What led to that . Peter well, certainly the government needs to have a source of income. Were times when the government was pulling into much money and creating a bigger then people wanted, and had a surplus. It was a system that was out of control. It was really a lot of conversation. It is interesting that we still have some of that same notion today in terms of tax revenue about government programs. Related to income. It is hidden much more because and welot of bartering so close to our revenue streams. Creating impact changed the notion. The argument for industries was long past. The notion of income taxes is created in a time where its possible to raise money in a different kind of manner, and will really push the government in a different kind of direction. The Supreme Court had ruled that income taxes were illegal, so it was required to have a constitutional amendment to make it pass. Susan if we move to the era of the 1930s, the government is now having an income tax. We have gone through world wars. But fdr comes into office. How does the policy of the United States change from fdr through most of the 20th century regarding trade and tariffs . Peter well, even before fdr aboutin, you have to talk someone else. Susan everyone learns that in high school, dont they . Peter there was an article recently about one of the relatives, the family discovering what their genealogy was in being appalled by it. Historians, economists, politicians all love to argue about the tariff. It is a very draconian one it that really ups the ante. Susan it passed during the depression. Peter sort of. It partially passed before the depression. And before it is put into place the market crashes, so it really depends on your definition of depression. And that is one of the things that drives it. That the Great Depression as the fall of the stock market and financial collapse, that is one thing. But in fact, agriculture in the United States had been in a almostbad straits for the entire decade. The 1920s is a bad time. There is a desire to improve things for farmers. Smoothawley is generating toginally formed as a tariff generate protection not for manufacturers, but for farmers to raise their situation. Unfortunately, once you start taking a bill, like the tariff bill in congress, people jump on board and the logrolling takes place and the protection for the farmers, people sign onto, but they ask for protection for different kinds of manufacturers. And by the time smoothawley was put into play, the Great Depression had hit. The tariffs were very destructive and created retaliation. It stopped International Trade and was very destructive. Fairly quickly fdr comes into play and starts looking at a different kind of approach of reciprocal trade. Where instead of having tariffs that are true for everybody, you have different relationships with different countries. Its really a different sensibility that becomes kind of defining for us, even to today. Congress also seated power to the executive branch. Why would Congress Give up that power . Peter Congress Hangs onto it. The executive branch get stronger and stronger. The tariffs are being charged today by donald trump are coming strictly from the white house. He is using an interesting approach. Its the economic expansion act of 1962. And the Congress Still has the right to generate tariffs. Any tax bill, any money bill comes out of congress. But this economic expansion act says the president , in times of National Defense can impose tariffs. So it is kind of a loophole that is used. It is really part of this trend of congress having less power in the executive branch maintaining more power. Susan coming out of the roosevelt administration, we hear about the agreements on tariff and trade in 1947. The next and last clip i want to show you, fastforward from the us the 1940s into the 1990s. This is president bill clinton on the signing of the nafta agreement. Lets watch. [video clip] fmr. Pres. Clinton its an honor for me today to be joined today with this north American Freetrade agreement. President jimmy carter gives great energy to our efforts and has been a consistent theme that that his for many, many years now. President ford, who has argued this fiercely for expanded trade and for this agreement as any american citizen, and whose counsel i continue to value. These men differing and party and outlook join us today because we all recognize the nationnt stakes for our in this issue. Today we turn to face the challenge in our own country, our own hemisphere, and our own economic fortunes. In a few moments i will sign three agreements i will complete our negotiations with mexico and canada to create in north American Free trade agreement. In the coming months i will submit this to congress for approval. It will be a hard fight, and i expect to be there with all of you every step of the way. [end of video clip] susan and the year after nafta was signed, the wto was created in 1994, you mentioned the protests that continue to the wto meets. What was interesting was the lineup of democratic and republican president s before him , Ronald Reagan before him, was an antitariff free trade agreement. We continue on this motif through now. Here and between the 2018s, we are questioning whether or not nafta was a good idea and a president talking about tariffs again. So is this in fact all cyclical . Peter things definitely come and go. Everybody always argues about what the cycles are like, people always try to pick the stock market based on cycles. If they exist, its hard to say. Philosophical trained, wto, imf, is all about creating a different world order. Really following world war ii recognition that it is no longer just about nations. That we are in a truly Global Economy and we really have to operate in a different kind of way. And i think across these party lines you see the leaders recognizing that new world order and trying to create a degree, from different perspectives, of stability. Business always likes stability. In today what we are seeing is a fascinating return to nationalism. It was very strong in the late 1900s. In the early 1900s in late 1800s. And there have been a couple of, really would point to three big , acts that give us a sense of this rising nationalism. First, we saw the rise of putin in russia doing things clearly selfdestructive to the country. Nationalistic in terms of perspective, but it has made his power ever stronger. So a really nationalistic push. Then we had brexit. Which, again, seems from a business perspective beyond belief, odd the british folks would choose to pull themselves out of the eu. But again, based on nationalism. And then finally, the election of donald trump as president on this populist nationalist kind of push. And we really see the rhetoric of nationalism starting to trump globalism. That people are making decisions that are very emotional, and not necessarily always Good Business sense. Susan we are also talking about tariffs with regards to china. And you mentioned china as an important trading partner since the beginning of the country. So how does the china american tensions play into this . China, itl certainly has been ongoing, that when the United States started trading with china in the 1820s18 30s, china did not want much from the u. S. And the u. S. Wanted a lot from china. That kind of sensibility continues into today. That the nation is not that interested in pulling in this notion. F incirlik so creating a truly free trade with china is something that has challenge people for quite some time. And there has never been a moment of tremendous free trade with china. Susan in our last four to five minutes as we sum up, what are the things that people should know about the history of tariffs in this country, and the role that they have played in the country and economy . Peter i think tariffs are so intimidating, so difficult, and so complex. If you go to a party and Start Talking about tariffs, guarantee peoples eyes will rollback and they will walk away to do something else. It is not a sexy topic. In fact, it is really a mistake because tariffs are so fascinating. I think from my perspective, not doing the economic history, but looking at the anecdotes are so revealing. So, thinking back on the thinking back on the protests of the wto, the wto, in 1999 in seattle, what was that all about . One of the problems as we moved away from politicians that we know and we voted for, and we could complain to that was true in the 1800s, now in 1999 we nameless aircraft at the imf for wto making decisions who have no input. So the icon of the protests were the marching turtles. Everybody thought it was hilarious and interesting with but for the turtle outfits is about tariffs. That the United States decided that from an environmental perspective, it was important to not buy shrimp from countries that did not put turtle excluders on their nets. Caughte shrimp would be in without these turtle exclude rs you would be killing sea turtles. So, the u. S. Passed this tariff that forbade the import of shrimp from those countries. And the wto said that was unfair trade practice, and said we had to buy shrimp from those countries. The marching turtles were in fact activists, really heartfelt people saying that we hold the environment first, and that we want to do this over national trade. And so you start to see the complications, the difficulty for these different things. The banana wars would be another great example of how a mcdonalds in france is destroyed by farmers who are making cheese over the u. S. Practice with bananas in guatemala. They are very complicated, very interlocked, and people really should dive into tariffs. Certainly at this wonderful anecdotal level to have a better sense of how complex it really is. Susan we had a chance to see a couple of items from your exhibition at the American History museum here in washington. And we encourage people to come by and see it if they are visiting the nations capital. If you were to choose an iconic object from todays debate over terrorists, do you know what that would be . Peter there are so many. The exhibition is chockfull of it. At the end of the exhibition there is a bottle of mexican wascola, which turns out hard to collect. Wet is important is that it was from 2002. It is all about our trade battles. Mexico has a big sugar industry, cane industry, and the u. S. Is a very efficient grower of corn, from which you can make High Fructose Corn Syrup. The u. S. Started to export it to High Fructose Corn Syrup to mexico. Mexico said it was a bad idea, and they put a tariff on to High Fructose Corn Syrup. The u. S. Files a protest with the wto. The wto rules in favor of the u. S. Mexico then puts a tax on High Fructose Corn Syrup. And again, the wto decides in favor of the United States and High Fructose Corn Syrup is allowed to be exported to mexico. And so that simple bottle of coke that looks refreshing but fact embodies a herculean battle between forces around the world. And so much of that is true. And by diving into some of these artifacts and our exhibition, i think our visitors will have a better chance of the complexities of the world they live in. Susan Peter Liebhold thank you for taking a very complex topic for tariffs and helping us to understand how important they have been. Peter i hope everyone has a chance to come and visit our exhibit, and help us think about what new artifacts we should collect to represent the everchanging story. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] all q and a programs are available on our website at cspan. Org. Announcer sunday night, we discussed speakers of the house with matthew green. A long day from sam rayburn and dwight eisenhower, the idea you work together, even if you are in separate institutions. This idea in particular the speaker should be deferential to the president. That is not what we are seeing now. There is a way that is a sign of healthy partisan differences. If you disagree, you should not be afraid to say so, but there are certain ways in which our tocted officials we expect share some agreement on issues or they have these roles to watched sunday night at 8 00 a. Eastern on cspans q in february 19, 1945, the u. S. Navy and marines launched an invasion of a heavilyfortified japanese island named iwo jima. , theon reel america, academyaward nominated documentary, to the shores of iwo jima. It tells the story of the brutal 36day battle in which almost 7000 marines were killed