This week, Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, announced the organisation's support for President Trump's trade policy. That includes helping Trump with tariff threats to ensure better trade deals with foreign countries.
The announcement reflects the broader shifts that are underway at Heritage. Once a pillar of conservative facilities, think tanks move towards a more populist “America-first” approach, challenging traditional Republican consensus on trade.
We are not just a market, we are a nation. The only important test is whether policy puts Americans first.
As expected, critics of old security guards such as Jonah Goldberg and John Podretz emerged from their unrelated holes to denounce the legacy for the betrayal of “conservative principles.” However, these men who have not saved what they are blessed have lost sight of the basic truth. The economy should serve the state, not the other way around.
In theory, free trade eliminates barriers to cross-border flows of goods and services. The promise is that open markets will lead to increased competition for everyone, efficiency and low prices. British economist David Riccardo has developed comparative advantage ideas to support this model, claiming that it benefits both countries when each focuses on what each produces most efficiently.
As a scholar Nima Parvini pointed outHowever, Ricardo's theory was based on important assumptions. Most notably, labor and capital remain largely fixed. That assumption is no longer held.
Ricardo never imagined a world where illegal immigration surged across borders or companies made profits abroad to build factories in cheaper countries. In fact, he warned against the separation of economic decisions from national loyalty.
Ricardo believed that men's attachment to their country would allow them to accept less profits at home rather than seeking higher profits abroad. He viewed the sense of loyalty of the nation as a natural barrier to capital flight and as a necessary one. It would be a tragedy, he warned if the bond broke.
Economists, most frequently cited by the Absolute Fraudist of Free Trade, understood that theoretical models only work when rooted in reality. In Ricardo's view, trade only makes sense when an individual values more people than he pursues the greatest profit.
In an ideal world, workers and businesses will prioritize national loyalty over global opportunities, and all countries will reduce trade barriers. But we don't live in that world.
Many countries (even US allies) use tariffs and subsidies on a daily basis to give domestic industries an advantage. They do this and benefit from a global trading system that operates safely and reliably, primarily at the expense of America.
These countries act as secondary in their national interests. The US should do the same thing.
Free trade is neither a moral order nor an inherent good. This is an economic policy rooted in theory about how trade works. Those who promote it without question often ignore both the theory of today's world economy and the historical context in which Ricardo developed reality.
If free trade benefits Americans, we should pursue it. If not, you should adopt a policy to do so.
Political theorist Russell Kirk argued that conservatism should never be an ideology. That initial obligation is to the happiness of certain people. Conservatism is not about abstract ideals or academic formulas. It is about maintaining a way of life based on real communities and traditions.
Those who defend theory over living experience are not conservatives. They are ideologues covered in the language of rights, often more interested in intellectual attitudes than protecting American life.
This is why strict neoconservative approaches to trade have so often failed. They claim to be “preserved,” but in reality they erode the very institutions and livelihoods they intended to protect.
These ideas have been tested and failed. For decades, the United States has acted as the only major economy fully committed to ideological free trade. The outcome was disastrous.
Other countries talk about free trade, but act in their own interests. They impose tariffs, protect key industries and prioritize citizens. They live in the real world – not academic simulations. It's been a long time since the US does the same thing.
Economists and other scholars play important roles in society, but as the Covid-19 catastrophe has revealed, they should not have the final say in public policy. While experts provide valuable insights, their knowledge is often narrowly applied to a particular field. They tend to struggle when asked to apply that knowledge in a broader, real-world context.
That is why states are governed by politicians, not by scientists or economists.
Economists may point out that antibiotic production in China reduces costs. However, if China, the sole supplier, is the source of diseases that are only known to be treated by antibiotics as the current source, the same economist cannot weigh national risks. In that scenario, there is no amount of economic efficiency that will save America's lives.
Changing US trade policies to protect American interests does not disappoint conservative principles. The first duty of conservatism is to maintain the American people and their way of life.
Conservatives should adopt economic policies that serve that goal, but we should not treat those policies as objectives in their own right. Economy is a tool, not a purpose.
Neoconservatives may lament the loss of ideological purity, but their abstractions should not define national policy. We are not just a market, we are a nation. The only important test is whether policy puts Americans first.
