To provide a comprehensive comparative analysis of the provided news articles, I will identify the key areas of agreement and disagreement, and then offer a balanced summary that reconciles the biases.

### Agreements

Both liberal and conservative articles acknowledge the complexity and potential consequences of tariffs:

1. Economic Impact: There is a consensus that tariffs generally increase costs for consumers and businesses. The liberal articles from CNN and The New York Times emphasize the negative impact on prices for consumers and the economic slowdown. The conservative sources, TheBlaze and NewsMax, also hint that tariffs could lead to increased costs, particularly emphasizing the potential shortcomings of specific tariffs (e.g., on copper).

2. International Relations: There is agreement on the strained relationships between the United States and its trading partners due to tariffs. Both sides note the tense negotiations and potential retaliatory actions from countries like China, Canada, and members of the European Union.

3. Job Market Effects: Both perspectives suggest that tariffs can have mixed effects on domestic employment, with potential downsides in certain sectors that rely on imported materials.

### Disagreements

1. Purpose and Justification: The liberal articles tend to view tariffs as primarily harmful, arguing they are a misguided tool for addressing trade imbalances and could hinder economic growth. The conservative articles, while acknowledging some drawbacks, discuss tariffs as a potential tool for national security and economic self-sufficiency, suggesting that they might have legitimate uses if applied strategically.

2. Consequences and Benefits: The liberal viewpoint emphasizes the broader macroeconomic and consumer impacts, generally portraying tariffs as disruptive and counterproductive. The conservative articles highlight the historical context and national security dimensions, suggesting tariffs could bolster domestic industry if applied correctly.

3. Long-term Effects: Liberals often highlight long-term negative consequences, including diminished economic output and job losses across sectors using imported materials. Conservatives might argue for the potential long-term benefits of revitalizing domestic industries and achieving economic independence.

### Reality Likely Exists Between the Biases

Both articles present aspects that contribute to a nuanced understanding of tariffs:

Complex Economic Dynamics: Tariffs have complex and multifaceted impacts. They can indeed raise consumer prices and have mixed effects on jobs, but they may also protect certain domestic industries temporarily. Thus, tariffs should be considered as part of a larger economic strategy rather than a one-size-fits-all solution.

Strategic Implementation: The conservative emphasis on strategic, rather than blanket, use of tariffs aligns with economic theories supporting targeted protectionism for critical industries. However, over-reliance on tariffs or broad application without clear strategic goals could undermine economic growth, as the liberal articles suggest.

Geopolitical and Diplomatic Considerations: Both agree that tariffs impact international relations, presenting risks that need careful management. The best approach might combine diplomatic negotiations with targeted trade policies to minimize retaliation and maintain alliances.

In summary, while tariffs can be a tool for national security or foster domestic industries, they must be used judiciously with clear objectives to avoid undermining broader economic health and international relationships.