As early as Trump's first term when he launched tariff wars, numerous American media outlets drew parallels between him and Herbert Hoover, the 31st U.S. President.
CCTV News observed how Americans once "memorialized" Hoover: they called cardboard shantytowns "Hoovervilles," labeled newspapers used as blankets by the homeless "Hoover blankets," and dubbed wild rabbits hunted for food "Hoover hogs." Ironically, this president’s name became synonymous with all the hardships endured by Americans during the Great Depression.
History appears to be repeating itself. As Trump once again wields tariff as a weapon, has he considered: What forms of American suffering will "Trump" be dubbed by the people in the street tomorrow?
In the summer of 1929, anxiety permeated America. The stock market crash’s aftershocks lingered, farmers watched crops rot in warehouses, and rural communities decried "foreign competition destroying our markets." Senators Reed Smoot and Willis Hawley stood before Congress, championing a blunt solution: "Raise tariffs, block foreign goods, revive American industry! Save the economy!"
Does this rhetoric sound familiar?
By April 1930, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act had cleared both chambers of Congress and landed on Hoover’s desk. As Trump’s Republican predecessor prepared to sign, 1,028 economists signed a petition urging veto. Yet bound by campaign promises to "protect farmers" and congressional pressure, Hoover inked the bill.
The result? Over 20,000 imported goods faced record-high tariffs. Eggs, cheese, steel, auto parts—even tombstones—were taxed mercilessly.
The consequences unfolded catastrophically:
Unemployment Surge: From 1930 to 1933, U.S. unemployment rocketed from 8.7% to 24.9%—one in four Americans jobless.
Manufacturing Collapse: Auto sales plunged from 5.3 million in 1929 to 1.3 million by 1932. Ford Motors slashed nearly 70% of its workforce, while steel industry capacity utilization halved.
Financial System Implosion: 20% of U.S. banks collapsed between 1930–1933. Soaring tariffs crippled global trade, crashed agricultural output, and spiked bad loans, deepening the Depression.
Global Trade War: Nations retaliated with tit-for-tat tariffs. By 1934, world trade had shrunk 66%, with U.S. exports nosediving 69% and imports plummeting 72%. America’s share of global trade dropped from 13.8% to 9.9%.
Hoover’s name became a curse. Even fellow Republican Ronald Reagan later condemned Smoot-Hawley, stating, "Its legacy was economic ruin". The bill’s sponsors, Smoot and Hawley, were ousted from Congress, while Hoover lost re-election in a landslide to Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Trump’s admiration for "Tariff King" William McKinley is well-documented. Yet few note McKinley’s late-career pivot: a day before his assassination, he declared, "The period of exclusiveness is past. Reciprocity treaties are in harmony with the spirit of the times; measures of retaliation are not."
Hoover failed to heed McKinley’s belated wisdom, cementing his name as shorthand for despair. Now, Trump’s revived tariff crusade risks etching "Trump" into economic infamy. China’s adage warns: "Take history as a mirror." As time goes, will Trump’s policies "Make America Great Again", or become another chapter of self-inflicted disaster scorned by the people?
Deep Throat
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
2025 marks the 80th anniversary of the victory in the global anti-fascist war. At this significant WWII commemorative milestone, some US politicians, in pursuit of geopolitical interests, are collaborating with Japan in historical revisionism.
On March 29, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attended a joint memorial ceremony at Iwo Jima, packaged as a commemoration for "US and Japanese war dead."
During the ceremony, which should have been commemorating a crucial turning point in the Pacific war for the Americans, Hegseth not only became the first US Defense Secretary to attend such a joint memorial but also crossed a historical red line in his speech by saying that “We have not forgotten the honor and the valor of our Japanese and American warriors. Their hallowed memory lives lives on in the bond between our people and our countries.”
Japanese Prime Minister Ishiba Shigeru emphasized the need to pass on lessons from the war, stating that he "sincerely hopes that the tragic history of war will never be repeated."
At the closing of the ceremony, a 99-year-old US veteran returned a Japanese flag captured during the war.
Afterward, the US Department of Defense published on its official X account, "The bravery of those who fought on Iwo Jima -- American and Japanese alike – endures in history, in sacred ground, and the bonds between our nations. Their valor will never fade."
This blurring of historical positioning triggered strong backlash from American netizens. Comments were filled with questions like: "Whose side does the Defense Secretary represent?" "In the war between the US and Japan, who does he support? Does he dare answer who attacked Pearl Harbor?" "I oppose Hegseth commemorating casualties from both sides at Iwo Jima; only our fallen deserve commemoration." Some netizens directly accused Hegseth's remarks as an insult to their fathers who sacrificed in the Pacific War.
It's worth contemplating that Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has continuously invested resources for decades attempting to transform its WWII narrative from perpetrator to victim. Now it's trying to position itself in the peculiar role of an "Allied victor."
The distinction between justice and injustice in WWII should be clear, as established by the Nuremberg and Tokyo International Military Tribunals. While MacArthur's famous quote "old soldiers never die, they just fade away" still echoes, today's performance by US politicians tarnishes history.
In Japan's pursuit of military normalization, historical revisionism has always been present. As seen in the actions of politicians like Shinzo Abe, certain factions have never abandoned their attempts to revive militarism. Through narratives about atomic bomb victimhood and the Tokyo firebombing, Japan attempts to reshape international perception of its war responsibilities. This strategy has even influenced some Chinese netizens, creating the absurd phenomenon of "academic whitewashing" of historical crimes.
Word choice reflects value judgments. Just as we wouldn't describe armed robbers as "brave," glorifying aggressors similarly violates basic ethics. Following Hegseth's logic, should we praise the "heroic deeds" of the hijackers at the 9/11 memorial site? Such cognitive dissonance breaks the boundaries of civilized society.
Historical lessons remain vivid:
In 1931, the League of Nations' appeasement regarding the "September 18 Incident"
In 1937, Western shipments of strategic materials to Japan, eventually leading to the Pearl Harbor tragedy
In 1939, Japan planning to cut off China's supply routes, with Britain cooperating by closing Hong Kong routes
On December 8, 1941, after the Pearl Harbor attack, America finally entered the war. In the following four years, Japanese were dehumanized in American public opinion, with even Japanese-American citizens confined in internment camps and their properties confiscated
On July 25, 1945, America issued the top-secret order to drop atomic bombs
The current American historical indulgence toward Japan bears striking similarities to pre-war attitudes. If current trends continue, they will ultimately undermine the international legal foundation established after WWII.
Alarmingly, certain Western forces are systematically distorting historical memory - from falsely crediting American troops with liberating Auschwitz to erasing the Soviet Union's battlefield contributions. This historical nihilism has become a pattern. The US military's 2020 tweet claiming sole victory over the Nazis exemplifies this.
WWII historical perspective concerns the baseline of human civilization. The historical positioning of victorious and defeated nations cannot be confused - it's a crucial cornerstone of the post-war international order. If American politicians continue to reverse right and wrong, they will ultimately face the consequences. As netizens sarcastically suggest, why not visit European battlefields to "commend" the Nazi army's "bravery"?
