By Richard Martin, Chief Strategist, Alcera Consulting Inc.
In times of uncertainty, it’s natural to reach for historical analogies. They help us make sense of what’s unfolding, offer a sense of predictability, and—often—comfort. That’s why so many voices today, in the face of mounting economic dislocation and policy turbulence, point to 2008 or 2020 as the models to keep in mind. They tell us: “This too shall pass. We’ve been through worse. Recovery will follow.”
But this isn’t 2008. And it certainly isn’t 2020. What we are facing now in 2025 is not a conventional crisis. It is a deliberate, ideologically motivated disruption, engineered not by exogenous shocks or systemic breakdowns, but by a conscious policy turn—one that seeks to unravel the very structure of the global economy under the banner of national revival.
If we’re to navigate what’s coming—seeking both opportunity and defence—we need to draw on history with far greater care. The most useful lessons are not from the last two decades. They come from earlier eras, and from experiences outside the usual American lens. This requires us to stop reaching for familiar patterns and start asking harder questions: What kind of crisis is this? What drives it? And what precedents are more relevant?
This Is Not 2008—And That Comparison Is Misleading
Both the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID shock of 2020 were systemic ruptures. They were not caused by deliberate policy choices, but by failures—failures of oversight, of preparation, and of institutional resilience. However flawed the diagnoses and decisions may have been, what followed was a remarkable degree of global coordination, spearheaded by the United States.
In 2008, central banks injected liquidity into frozen markets. In 2020, governments unleashed fiscal policy on a wartime scale. The world acted together—or at least tried to. U.S. leadership, though imperfect, was visible. International cooperation was a priority.
Fast forward to today. We are witnessing the intentional dismantling of that system. The policies now being rolled out—most notably Trump’s sweeping Liberation Day tariffs—are not reactions to crisis. They are instruments of disruption. Their stated aim is to reverse decades of global economic integration, reinstate protectionism, and reconfigure domestic industry through top-down intervention.
This isn’t stimulus or rescue. It’s retrenchment. And history tells us that the consequences of such moves—especially when executed by the world’s largest economy—can be far more dangerous than any financial crash.
The Need to Look Deeper—and Wider
If we’re going to use history as a guide, we need to go further back—and cast a wider net. The instinct to analogize from the recent past leads us to the wrong insights. What’s unfolding today is far more in line with 19th-century protectionism and early 20th-century economic retrenchment, with additional parallels in other national experiences that are too often ignored in Anglo-American analysis.
Consider the McKinley Tariff of 1890. It raised average duties to nearly 50%—a massive increase designed to cement the dominance of American industrial capital. Unlike earlier tariffs justified under the “infant industry” argument, McKinley’s measures were about preserving supremacy, not fostering development. The U.S. was already an industrial power. The Republican Party, heirs to the Hamiltonian-Whig tradition, had triumphed in using the federal government to shape the economy. Protectionism wasn’t a temporary measure—it was the order of the day.
The tariff sparked political backlash (the Democrats won control of the House in the 1890 midterms), but it also reinforced a long-term orientation: America would use the state to steer its industrial destiny, especially when electoral interests aligned with industrial capital and labour protectionism.
Now compare this with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930. That was different. It came amid the early stages of the Great Depression and was framed as a defensive measure to protect American farmers and workers. But its global consequences were devastating. Over 20 countries retaliated. World trade contracted by two-thirds. Deflation spiraled. The tariff didn’t cause the Great Depression—but it deepened it, globalized it, and helped undermine liberal regimes around the world.
Today’s Liberation Day tariffs exceed Smoot-Hawley in scope and ambition. But they come not in a moment of desperation, but as a strategic gesture—a signal of economic nationalism, ideological consolidation, and geopolitical disengagement. They invoke the rhetoric of McKinley but risk triggering the systemic consequences of Smoot-Hawley.
And this is just the American dimension. The broader historical record offers more cautionary tales.
Looking Beyond the U.S.—What Other Nations Teach Us
America is not the only country to pursue economic nationalism. The 20th century is littered with examples of protectionist policies that produced economic stagnation, authoritarian drift, and geopolitical decline.
Argentina under Juan Perón is one example. While not identical, there are resonances:
- State-led industrial policy,
- Populist redistribution,
- Trade barriers,
- Political favoritism and crony capitalism.
Peronism was born in a different context—an emerging Latin American economy, not a global hegemon—but it offers a warning. When governments use the economy as a stage for symbolic power, the long-term result is economic decay and strategic marginalization.
Elsewhere, interwar Europe offers more sobering reminders. After the collapse of the gold standard and the failure of liberalism post WWI, many states turned inward. Protectionism, capital controls, and autarky replaced openness. In Germany, the Nazi regime fused economic nationalism with military expansionism. In Britain and France, democratic governments struggled to manage the fallout. The result was not just economic contraction—but the dismantling of the international order itself.
We are not in the 1930s. But once again, we see a major power undermining the global system from within—not because of crisis, but as a matter of doctrine.
Rhetoric and Reality—What Trumpism Really Is
Trumpism is not coherent economic policy. It is a hybrid phenomenon:
- It speaks the language of 19th-century Republican protectionism—national renewal, domestic industry, fair trade.
- It borrows the performance style of 20th-century populism—spectacle, grievance, and symbolic confrontation.
- And it operates in a 21st-century system of deep interdependence, where disruption spreads fast and retaliation is immediate.
It is neither Hamiltonian nor Peronist. It is something new: an attempt to assert national control over global systems without building any alternative framework.
This is not a repeat of history. It is an unstable mash-up of ideologies and eras, applied out of context and driven by political calculation. And that is precisely what makes it so dangerous.
Strategic Focus—Learning the Right Lessons from the Past
So, what do we do with this analysis? What practical orientation can we draw from it?
The key is to focus on leverage and limits:
- What do we control?
Our strategy, capital, communications, and internal coherence.
- What can we influence?
Partnerships, positioning, narrative framing, sectoral resilience.
- What is beyond our control?
U.S. political dynamics, international retaliation, structural decoupling, and the erosion of global norms.
The strategic imperative is not to panic—but to see clearly. This moment calls for calm realism and a longer view—one that refuses the easy comfort of recent analogies and draws instead from structural history.
Conclusion: Use History Strategically, Not Emotionally
If there is one insight from history, it is this: When dominant powers choose ideology over stability, the effects are felt far beyond their borders.
This is not 2008. It is not 2020. And it is not the 19th century, either. It is something new, unstable, and systemically disruptive. The right historical analogies are not the most recent or the most comforting. They are the ones that reveal how systems unravel, how economic power is misused, and how political theatre often comes at the expense of strategic foresight.
If we are to navigate the years ahead, we must draw on history not as sentiment, but as strategy.
About the Author
Richard Martin is the founder and president of Alcera Consulting Inc., a strategic advisory firm specializing in exploiting change (www.exploitingchange.com). Richard’s mission is to empower top-level leaders to exercise strategic foresight, navigate uncertainty, drive transformative change, and build individual and organizational resilience, ensuring market dominance and excellence in public governance. He is the author of Brilliant Manoeuvres: How to Use Military Wisdom to Win Business Battles. He is also the developer of Worldview Warfare and Strategic Epistemology, a groundbreaking methodology that focuses on understanding beliefs, values, and strategy in a world of conflict, competition, and cooperation.
© 2025 Richard Martin
Discover more from Exploiting Change
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
