Thursday Thoughts: Tariff-ic?

I suppose I have a few ‘go-to guys’ that I like to consult on various topics, whom I’m always interested in finding out what they have to say. Peter Kreeft (academia and imagination) is one, Jimmy Akin (theology and cryptozoology, ufology, and other odd corners) is another, and I like to know what Michael Knowles (politics and culture) knows about a subject. What my ‘counsellors’ have in common is that they are all Catholic thinkers, and happen to be alive (G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis are great, but they don't always say anything about contemporary events). But I really pause and reflect on what Edward Feser (moral philosopher, also a Catholic) has said about a few subjects much in the news lately. He is a serious, sober thinker not given to spouting mere party opinions, and I always think he is worth consideration.

Here is a post from X:  “A neglected aspect of the tariff debate is the grave harm the new policy potentially poses to poor countries. A protectionist policy that is necessary to preserve American industries and the local communities they support can be good. A protectionist policy that simply needlessly harms a poor nation is wrong, as the Catholic Church teaches (see the passage below from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church). And the foolish notion that a trade imbalance is somehow in every case bad yields such policies, as in the case of the crippling 50% tariff threatened against Lesotho, a poor country incapable of buying as much from the U.S. as the U.S. buys from it. “America first” should never entail a “to hell with everyone else” attitude, which is not true patriotism but a jingoistic corruption of patriotism, and evil.”

The subject is more deeply covered here:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2025/04/on-tariff-crisis.html#more

And here is an article he wrote on immigration law:

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2025/03/97452/

“Yet while progressive Catholics conclude that Vance and other Catholic defenders of administration policy are flatly at odds with Church teaching on immigration, I will argue that that is not the case. In fact, the progressives rely on simplistic platitudes and selective quotations from authoritative documents. But when the entirety of the Church’s teaching is taken into account, it is clear that—within certain clearly defined boundaries—there can be reasonable disagreement about the contours of immigration policy among faithful Catholics. Indeed, it is clear that Vice President Vance is not only well within those boundaries, but is in fact on much stronger ground than those who advocate a virtually “open borders” position in the name of Catholicism.”

The whole article is well worth reading.

So, what do I think? I think I’m still thinking about it. And I also think that Edward Feser looks a little like Sean Astin.