You know those moments of lesson plan clarity that come to you while dodging potholes on the way to school? That was me today (and most days) after seeing a Facebook post recommending the NPR story, “What a Mayor of a General Motors Factory Town Thinks of Trump’s Tariffs”. 

Something I love about this course is when the stars align and there are multiple unit topic tie-ins with a current event that falls from the sky (and these days there is no shortage). I said what I said.

The tariffs discussed in the story—25% on all foreign-made cars—are set to go into effect April 2nd, 2025 (at least at the time of this posting). Real-world policy, unfolding in real time, connected to our unit 7 of Industrial and Economic Development.

Today’s windshield workshop (get it?) was also inspired by a recent trip to the Motor City, Detroit, Michigan. So, today’s lesson hits everything from neoliberalism, the multiplier effect, RustBelt cities, to FTZs.

APHG Course Topics Hit:

• 7.2: Economic sectors and locations of manufacturing
• 7.5: World Systems Theory (core-periphery)
• 7.6: Free trade agreements (NAFTA, USMCA, WTO, IMF, World Bank)
• 7.7: International division of labor, maquiladoras, FTZs, multiplier effect, deindustrialization

Lecture Notes – Neoliberalism vs. Protectionism

I kicked off with lectures notes and diagramming a spectrum: neoliberalism ←→ protectionism. Definitions, timeframes, and talking points are always provided while students mirror my notes from the Elmo projector. My kids take notes in an interactive notebook.

• Neoliberalism: A belief in free-market capitalism—limited government intervention, deregulation, privatization, NAFTA/USMCA, and open borders for trade. Anti-tariff, anti-subsidy, and anti-quota. I used the BMW as an example throughout.
• Protectionism: Government policies like tariffs, subsidies, and import quotas meant to protect domestic industries from foreign competition.

When I recite one of the current administration’s campaign slogan, “America First,” I ask students to predict, Which side of this tariff debate do you think the current president is on? It was a good moment to connect civics, current events, and geography.

Next, I showed them my picture from the Windsor, Canada side that shows all of the semi-trucks lined up with U.S. goods waiting to cross the Canadian border at 5pm on a Friday, with none going in the opposite direction. I ask them who they think has more to lose or gain with the implementation of tariffs.

I then tried to explain what’s so “neo” about neoliberalism. 

Because my student population never tires from connections to S. Asia, I talked about the British and the East. India Company. Here’s how I attempted to connect it:

1. Private enterprise with state power: The EIC was a for-profit corporation with enormous power to extract resources, control trade, and shape foreign economies using global trade networks.
2. India = periphery, Britain = core: If you’re teaching Wallerstein’s World Systems Theory, the EIC is a classic example. Britain industrializes, needs/wants raw materials (like cotton/salt), and uses India to supply them.
3. Infrastructure as control: Railroads, ports, and plantations built by the EIC under the guise of “development” were actually systems of spatial and economic control.

Next, after identifying key characteristics of neoliberalism and protectionism, I asked kids if they think tariffs would be welcomed in a “Motor City.”

NPR Story

At this point, we listened to the NPR clip (5 min.) that a fellow APHG teacher posted on the forum. In this clip, a mayor from a car town talks about job losses, ripple effects, and community impacts—aka cumulative causation.

Then came the real crowd-pleaser: sketch-noting a snowballing multiplier effect using Detroit, Michigan as my muse. With the kids following along, we visualized economic decline like a spiral: Detroit in its industrial hay-day → Offshoring to maquilladora FTZs (or “right to work for less” states) → deindustrialization of Detroit → loss of non-basic industries due to cumulative causation → job loss/unemployment → emigration → loss of tax base → decaying infrastructure (I talked about Flint) → poverty → homelessness → crime → rinse, repeat.

Source Work – Media and Perspective

Next, I pulled in articles from AllSides.com (highly recommended):

1. BBC (center): “Centered” narrative
2. New York Post (right, protectionist): Trump-leaning support for tariffs
3. Bloomberg (left/center, neoliberal): Economic concerns about tariffs and globalization

I tell students that I want them all to read the “centered-perspective” BBC article, and then also choose either the Post or Bloomberg article depending on their ideological flavor of the day (or whichever they notice is shorter).

SWOT Analysis

Using this SWOT analysis doc you can steal/copy/edit, students filled out the following:

• Strengths (short-term benefits of tariffs)
• Weaknesses (short-term drawbacks)
• Opportunities (long-term benefits)
• Threats (long-term risks)

They had to provide:

• A claim
• Evidence
• Consideration of scale (local, national, global)
• Nuanced language that indicated ideological lean (e.g., “protect American jobs” = protectionism; “global market competitiveness” = neoliberalism)

Adaptation: You could also instead have students conduct a SPEEDS analysis (social, political, economic, environmental, demographic, spatial), but I chose SWOT today because I’ve never done it before and I am a sucker for trying new things on a Monday morning after Spring Break.

Use or refuse.