Americans’ tolerance for lengthy economic disruption due to tariffs is seemingly very low.

Putting aside whether you or I believe in the potential benefits of widespread tariffs, I found this recent Gallup report fascinating regarding how Americans perceive their tolerance for the “short-term pain, long-term gain” tariff narrative. The chart below from Gallup shows that just 26% of U.S. adults would accept any disruption for more than a year.That leaves one-third of Republicans, 28% of independents and 15% of Democrats willing to endure a multiyear economic disruption to realize the possible benefits of tariffs.Subscribe for free to receive new posts.The Republicans are most interesting in this poll since that group believes most in possible tariff benefits. In particular, it finds that “in the long run,” 77% of Republicans think tariffs “will bring more money into the U.S. than it ends up paying in tariffs to other countries” and that 85% think it is very or somewhat likely that tariffs will lead to more U.S. manufacturing jobs. However, that pairs with 82%—about an equal amount of Republicans—who also think it is very or somewhat likely that tariffs will lead to “you paying more for products you buy.” This expectation of higher prices is reflected similarly in other recent polls, like this AP-Norc poll.So, ~80% of Republicans believe in the short-term pain, long-term gain narrative, yet only ~33% are willing to entertain that short-term pain for longer than a year. Why the huge gap?I don’t know, but here are a couple of non-mutually exclusive theories:* You’re probably more willing to endure short-term pain in a good economy. However, Republican confidence in the overall economy is low. For example, another recent Gallup poll finds that about half (48%) of Republicans/Republican leaners think today’s economy is either slowing down (25%), already in a recession (15%), or already in a depression (8%). This data rhymes with another recent Harris poll.* Most expect the short-term pain from higher tariffs to hit them personally in higher prices, but they expect the benefits (to the extent any are expected) to accrue mainly to others (given that most people don’t expect to be doing new manufacturing jobs themselves). This asymmetry seems like a potential pitfall for sacrifice-framed policies, unless the cost/benefit is more obviously positive at the individual level. Another interesting question is when the clock starts on the economic disruption for people. The on-the-ground disruption from tariffs, such as higher prices and shortages, hasn’t yet fully manifested. However, gyrations in the stock market have already been occurring for a couple of months. Does that mean we’re already two months into the economic disruption period, or, given the stock market’s recent recovery, there is a kind of reset in people’s minds until it either goes back down or until inflation and shortages are clearer? In any case, if the disruption isn’t cleared up within a year from now, then it is likely to have significant effects on the 2026 midterm elections.Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts or get the podcast. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit gabrielweinberg.com