Frankly, the inner workings of tariffs is not an important discussion.

What does he think tariffs will accomplish? What problem are they solving?

Almost certainly, they’re solving the offshoring of production from the US, which is a real problem that affects lots of people.

I’m sure he agrees that companies did that initially because it was profitable, and that profits were more important than the impact on US workers. He’ll likely agree that companies will tend to put profits over people, and he’ll likely agree that society shouldn’t run that way - we should prioritize feeding children, even if it’s not profitable.

Y’all can agree that the role of the US government is to be a counterbalance to companies maximizing profits at the expense of people. Y’all can agree that tariffs are A way of doing that, by lowering profits for companies that offshore production. The details are unimportant, but you should agree that they are an option.

I think you can then point it that that’s a horribly inefficient way of getting companies to move production here! The government is just deciding to make things more expensive?? No matter who pays that artificially higher price (companies or consumers), it’s a waste! The government is throwing a monkey wrench into companies just trying to get by! Inflation is already bad, why are we making things more expensive!?

I think you can then have a discussion on better ways that the government could incentivize companies to move production here. Point out that the only way the current government can influence companies is by trying to make doing the right thing more profitable (with either subsidies, taxes/tariffs, or fines), and that that’s a very blunt, imprecise tool.

Present an alternative: the government sees that we need factories, and then just pays for factories to be built. Acknowledge brainworm downsides about “the government is bad at stuff”, but point out that tariffs are way more invasive for companies, and ask if he would rather the government stick it’s hands in every company’s business or have it focus on building new stuff and leave existing businesses alone.

I imagine “but muh deficit” would come up, and I wouldn’t try to oppose that directly. “Yes and” him to “it costs money, sure, but it’s a good, effective use of money that puts American people to work.” I might even say that we can use the money from the tariffs to pay for building factories!

I’d also point out that if we have the government build factories, they don’t have incentives to cut corners like for-profit companies do. Tap into “military good” or NASA for examples of how the government can invest heavily into building world-class equipment. Maybe even mention that a lot of the waste in the military comes from the government being willing to pour ungodly sums of money into “protecting the troops” [sic], but greedy for-profit companies overcharge and cut corners.

Ultimately, tariffs are a bad solution to a real problem. You will never change his mind just by emphasizing that they’re a bad solution - you will come off as out of touch. “Yeah, obviously there are downsides, but there’s a real problem to be solved and we need to do what it takes to fix that problem.”

You must start from agreeing on the problem, or your opinions have no credibility. Once you’re both on the same side and trying to fix the underlying problem, it becomes a collaborative discussion where you’re working together to think of solutions.

You are no longer trying to win an argument, you’re trying to share your perspective and learn from theirs. Between the brainworms, they will have interesting takes, legitimate concerns, and perspectives that you haven’t considered. Search for the best version of their arguments, be open to learning and changing your mind, and quick to let them know when they’ve made good points.

We should always be refining our analysis, and carefully considering and being open to new ideas is how we can do that. There will be a lot of old, bad ideas, and if you’re able to effectively challenge those ideas then it should serve as a signal that your analysis is correct.

I wrote more about my general approach to discussions here.