Vice President J.D. Vance says free trade costs too much. He favors “broad-based tariffs,” Vance told CBS News. “We need to protect American industries from all of the competition.” More broadly, wrote American Compass leader Oren Cass this month in Foreign Affairs that Donald Trump’s victory represents an opportunity to diverge from Republican Party’s prior “market fundamentalism.”
These matters are far from settled, however. While Vance, Cass, and others may expect American conservatism to follow them leftward on economics (and other issues), I think they’re destined for disappointment.
Last fall, American voters rejected a continuation of the Biden-Harris administration. They voted against inflation and DEI run amok. They voted for job creation and order at the border. They put Republicans in charge of Congress, the White House, and most state governments.
Americans certainly did not vote for higher prices, however, which is the inevitable result of “broad-based tariffs.” Moreover, they did not vote against free markets, fiscal responsibility, checks and balances, or American leadership in the world. Most successful GOP campaigns, including Trump’s, featured lots of traditional fare: tax cuts, deregulation, public safety, peace through strength. These themes resonated because America is a Center-Right nation. Most voters — and an overwhelming 84% of Trump supporters — prefer a smaller government providing fewer services to a larger one providing more. In the Associated Press survey of those casting ballots in last fall, nearly three-quarters of Trump voters agreed that government was “doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals.”
To be sure, any coalition broad enough to govern will contain factions with differing views on some issues. In its 2024 polling, Echelon Insights identified three groups forming the GOP’s current coalition: MAGA Conservatives, Reagan Conservatives, and Right-Leaning Populists. Other pollsters offer comparable voter typologies, some with more-colorful labels.
Conservative policymakers and opinion leaders reflect these divisions, as well. Many have gravitated toward one of two groups, National Conservatives and Freedom Conservatives.
Among the signatories to the National Conservatism Statement of Principles, issued in 2022, are former U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, entrepreneur Peter Thiel, Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA, Michael Knowles of The Daily Wire, and such writers as Rod Dreher, Miranda Devine, Daniel McCarthy, and Yoram Hazony.
Among the signatories to the Freedom Conservatism Statement of Principles, issued in 2023, are former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, strategist Karl Rove, entrepreneur Jeff Sandefer, Steve Moore of Unleash Prosperity, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, Carrie Lukas of the Independent Women’s Forum, David McIntosh of the Club for Growth, and such writers as George Will, Russell Moore, and Ramesh Ponnuru.
You’ll find plenty of NatCons and FreeCons at think tanks, universities, media outlets, and activist groups. Both groups have pull on Capitol Hill and in the new administration. The president’s choice to run the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, is a NatCon signatory. Kevin Hassett, who chaired the Council of Economic Advisors during Trump’s first term, now directs the National Economic Council. He’s a FreeCon signatory.
While NatCons and FreeCons have much in common, they disagree on fiscal matters, industrial policy, pluralism, and Washington’s proper relationship to state and local governments.
Take the trade issue. In their statement, NatCons argued that “globalized markets allow hostile foreign powers to despoil America and other countries of their manufacturing capacity, weakening them economically and dividing them internally.” In the Freedom Conservatism statement, signatories pledged to reduce Americans’ cost of living “through competitive markets, greater individual choice, and free trade with free people.” With few exceptions, we see tariffs and other restrictions as insider tools used by special interests to gouge consumers.
Where do voters stand? It depends on how the issue is framed. Echelon found that 48% of voters thought free-trade agreements had “generally helped the United States,” while 26% said they’d hurt the U.S. and the rest weren’t sure. Ask voters if China has been taking advantage of us on trade and most will say yes. Ask voters if they want to pay more for clothing, electronics, and other often-imported goods and most will say no.
As one of the organizers of the FreeCon project, I’m hardly neutral on trade and other disputed issues. We’re fighting across-the-board tax hikes on imports because they’ll hurt more Americans than they’ll help. It’s one of the issues we’ll discuss at the first Freedom Conservatism Conference, to be held February 24, 2025 at the National Press Club in Washington.
On trade, as on so many other policy matters, FreeCons believe the best way to nurture and preserve American greatness is to champion and expand American freedom.
John Hood is president of the John William Pope Foundation, a North Carolina-based grantmaker, and one of the editors of FreedomConservatism.org.
Read Full Article »
