Local opinion: Which is the best approach, the carrot or the stick?

The concept of “carrot and stick” is an example of two different methods used to achieve a desired outcome. The “carrot” refers to promising and giving of desired rewards in exchange for cooperation. The “stick” refers to the threat of undesirable consequences for non-cooperation. In political terms, the carrot could be the promise of special benefit for a certain action, while the stick may be the threat of tariffs or economic sanctions.

Thus far, President Trump has almost always used the stick and rarely the carrot. I suggest that it is time to consider the carrot approach because Trump’s big stick has produced mixed results.

In November 2024, the American people sent a strong message that they wanted change. Many voted for Trump because they dreaded four more years like the previous, with rampant inflation, rising costs, increasing crime, and illegal immigration as compelling issues. The American people wanted strong leadership and reassurance that the US is the greatest country in the world. Donald Trump won 77,284,118 votes, or 49.8%. That was the second-highest vote total in U.S. history, not a mandate but certainly an impressive victory.

Trump made many promises during the campaign. One promise during his “Make America Great Again” campaign was to use tariffs on imports to force businesses to produce products and services in the US. Trump thinks “tariff” is a beautiful word and said so, repeatedly, during the campaign. “The word ‘tariff,’ is ... one of the most beautiful words I’ve ever heard. It’s music to my ears,” he said at a rally in Savannah, Georgia, on Sept. 24. It was part of his effort to convince voters that imposing tariffs would help bring back American manufacturing and create jobs.

Instead of tariffs, which cause trade wars and raise consumer prices, why not offer additional incentives to companies that expand or relocate their businesses on American soil? This is already being done successfully by many states and countries that offer incentives or create economic trade zones. Economic incentives will be far more effective than threats and tariffs.

In January, Trump imposed tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, then on April 2, which he called “Liberation Day,” he imposed tariffs on nearly every country in the world, some of which did not exist. When Trump imposed 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico for no good reason, normally Trump-friendly Wall Street Journal called it the “dumbest” trade war in history. Then he paused the tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Recently, the U.S. and China reached an agreement to lower their reciprocal tariff rates to 10%, a major reduction from previous peaks that reached as high as 145%. However, due to other existing duties, the effective tariff rate on most Chinese goods remains above 30%.

Trump’s tariffs have created a roller-coaster ride. Tariffs caused unruly markets, which made economists skittish, tanked the stock market, and devastated retirement accounts. Prices, especially at the grocery store, continued to rise, mostly because of the tariffs on imported food products. Consumer confidence declined for a fifth consecutive month in April, falling to its lowest reading since May 2020.

Besides tariffs, Trump has used his “stick” in other unproductive ways. First, he insulted our many friends in Canada by calling then-Prime Minister Trudeau “Governor” and threatening to annex them as our 51st state. His calls to take over Greenland and the Panama Canal by “whatever means necessary,” shocked allies and reassured adversaries that it’s ok to use force when convenient. In the future, foreign leaders should be cautious to accept White House invitations if Trump’s treatment of Ukraine’s President Zelensky and South African President Ramaphosa are examples of the unexpected. Even Trump-friendly Fox News admitted that images Trump used to illustrate perceived genocide in South Africa were fake.

There is a popular saying, “you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar,” meaning that being pleasant and kind is more effective in achieving your goals than being harsh or unpleasant. The big question of course is would President Trump consider using gentle persuasion and flattery to accomplish his goals instead of confrontation?