Natcons, Freecons, and the Centrality of the State
/p
div class=paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default paragraph--235231 fs-sm
pDear Capitolisters,/p In case you haven’t noticed (and if you’re reading this you probably have), Donald Trump’s meteoric rise and persistent influence on U.S. politics has created an identity crisis on much of the American right. In particular, there is tension between more traditional “Reaganite” conservatives and a “new right” group of “national conservatives” more in Trump’s mold. In recent years, the energy—more in rhetoric and attention than concrete policy wins and major electoral victories—has been squarely with the latter group, which released last year anbsp;10‐point “Statement of Principles” signed by various natcon wonks and pundits. For more than anbsp;year, thenbsp;a href=https://nationalconservatism.org/national-conservatism-a-statement-of-principles/ target=_blankNatcon Manifesto/anbsp;had the stage to itself, discussed and debated, sure, but not directly challenged by an alternative vision for the future of the American right. That vacuum was filled two weeks ago when anbsp;new group, the “freedom conservatives,” published their ownnbsp;a href=https://www.freedomconservatism.org/p/freedom-conservatism-a-statement target=_blankmission statement/a, which—although expresslynbsp;emnotnbsp;/emintended to be an “anti‐Natcon” document (see also thisnbsp;a href=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/07/13/freedom_conservatives_will_keep_america_great_149478.html?callback=inamp;code=OGI4ZDIWM2UTY2Y3OS0ZODLMLTGYOWQTNTBIM2M3YZJINJE4amp;state=c1a6ba1601bf4ad6bb1430116ec1dcd1 target=_blankaccompanying op‐ed/anbsp;by John Hood)—nevertheless offers anbsp;conservative alternative what the natcons are selling.
/div
,
div class=paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default paragraph--235232 fs-sm
pspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanI didn’t sign the freecon document and can quibble with certain elements and omissions, but Inbsp;know and respect many of the signatories—including emThe Dispatch/em’s own Jonah Goldberg and Kevin Williamson—and prefer it greatly over the natcon alternative, as frequent strongCapitolism/strong readers could surely guess. Were this anbsp;world of binary choices, your humble, free‐market, lowercase‑L libertarian correspondent would choose the freecons in anbsp;heartbeat (and twice on Sundays). /span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/p
pspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanspanBut today’s column is less about emmy choice/em and more about whether the dueling statements offer much of anbsp;choice at all, or whether they are—as some more thoughtful internet commentators have since asserted—simply different points along the same conservative spectrum, separated by modest and marginal policy differences instead of anbsp;gaping philosophical chasm. In this reading, the two statements, and the groups they represent, share the same objectives and political adversaries—the woke left, anbsp;captured administrative state, compromised corporatists, and so on—and, save anbsp;few major policy breaks (mainly trade and immigration) or imprecise/emotional words here and there—really just disagree about where wonky policy lines should be drawn. In short, it’s all shades of the same conservatism—shades that only the dorkiest of politico will care about./span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/span/p
/div
,
aside class=aside--right aside--large paragraph paragraph--type--aside paragraph--view-mode--default paragraph--235234 aside
div class=paragraph paragraph--type--pullquote paragraph--view-mode--aside-nested paragraph--235233 pullquote p-mb-last-child-0
pDueling manifestos present two very different visions for America—and its government./p
/div
/aside
,
div class=paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default paragraph--235235 fs-sm
pThis view, Inbsp;think, emreally/em misses the mark. Indeed, even anbsp;cursory look at the two statements reveals anbsp;foundational, unbridgeable gap between natcons and freecons on the role of the government—especially the federal government—in American politics and American life. And it’s that difference, in turn, from which the policy differences (and there are many) are derived./p
pstrongWho’s Serving Whom?/strong/p
pLet’s start with thenbsp;a href=https://nationalconservatism.org/national-conservatism-a-statement-of-principles/ target=_blanknatcons’ statement/a, which offers anbsp;vision for America that expressly puts the state,nbsp;emnot its people/em, at the center of the action. The document, in fact, begins by declaring that the signatories “emphasize the idea of the nation” because only nations (“each pursuing its own national interests and upholding national traditions that are its own”) are a “genuine alternative” to the “universalist ideologies” they oppose. The rest of the document continues this statist (for lack of anbsp;better word?) theme: The first and second principles, on “National Independence” and “Rejection of Imperialism and Globalism,” respectively, address only state action and referencenbsp;emactual people/em—individuals, families, etc.—only once (and in relation to the state). In Principle 1, in fact, the state has a “right” to maintain borders and conduct policy, while in Principle 2nbsp;it is “nation-states”—not people—who work “together through trade treaties, defensive alliances, and other common projects.” (Wonky aside, governments don’t trade;nbsp;a href=https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/trade-tariffs-governments-barriers/ target=_blankempeople do/em/a; and trade agreements just regulate—or deregulate—how people do that. Anyway, back to the show.)nbsp;/p
pThe theme is continued in Principle 3, on “National Government,” which mentions liberty, freedom, and limited government (hooray),nbsp;embut/emnbsp;repeatedly qualifies and limits those principles via an empowered government. They believe, for example (emphasis mine), in a “strongstrong/strongnbsp;but limited” state; they want a “drastic reduction in thenbsp;strongscope/strongof the administrative state” (but not its overall size?); they recommend federalism and decentralized state power to expand freedom,nbsp;embut/emnbsp;then add an exception you could drive anbsp;tank (emahem/em) through: “in those states or subdivisions in which law and justice have been manifestly corrupted, or in which lawlessness, immorality, and dissolution reign, national government must intervene energetically to restore order.” These broad terms, of course, are undefined./p
pPrinciple 4nbsp;again prioritizes the “nation” when advocating public religion (i.e., Christianity, at least where there’s anbsp;Christian majority). It kindly permits religious minorities to freely observe their own traditions (in certain settings: “communal institutions” and child‐rearing), and ensures that people are free “from religious or ideological coercion”—though only “in their private lives and in their homes.” Principle 5nbsp;supports the rule of law but clarifies that it’s “how we preserve ournbsp;strongnational traditions/strongnbsp;andnbsp;strongour nation itself/strong” (again, emphasis mine). We finally get around to “Free Enterprise” and “individual liberty” in Principle 6, and once again these things are subject to massive caveats and exceptions that authorize, if not prioritize, state action in the (undefined) “national interest.” This part deserves to be quoted in full:/p
/div
,
blockquote class=paragraph paragraph--type--blockquote paragraph--view-mode--default paragraph--235236
div class=fs-lg
pBut the free market cannot be absolute. Economic policy must serve the general welfare of the nation. Today, globalized markets allow hostile foreign powers to despoil America and other countries of their manufacturing capacity, weakening them economically and dividing them internally. At the same time, trans‐national corporations showing little loyalty to any nation damage public life by censoring political speech, flooding the country with dangerous and addictive substances and pornography, and promoting obsessive, destructive personal habits. Anbsp;prudent national economic policy should promote free enterprise, but it must also mitigate threats to the national interest, aggressively pursue economic independence from hostile powers, nurture industries crucial for national defense, and restore and upgrade manufacturing capabilities critical to the public welfare. Crony capitalism, the selective promotion of corporate profit‐making by organs of state power, should be energetically exposed and opposed./p
/div
/blockquote
,
div class=paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default paragraph--235237 fs-sm
pWell, you might say, at least they’re attacking crony capitalism and corporatism. Alas, we then move on to Principle 7, which advocates for that very thing, i.e., government programs to “focus large‐scale public resources on scientific and technological research with military applications, on restoring and upgrading national manufacturing capacity, and on education in the physical sciences and engineering.” Corporations, of course, would spearhead this work—indeed, they’d deny the funds to “most universities,”nbsp;emunless/emnbsp;they “rededicate themselves to the national interest.” Education policy, meanwhile, also “should serve manifest national needs.”/p
pI could go on, but Inbsp;think you get the idea. This is “nationalism” in its most literal sense.nbsp;emL’état, c’est nous./em/p
pWith this context, one can more clearly see how thenbsp;a href=https://www.freedomconservatism.org/p/freedom-conservatism-a-statement target=_blankfreecon statement/anbsp;is fundamentally different from its natcon counterpart. Principles 1nbsp;and 2nbsp;lead off by focusing onnbsp;emhuman beings/em, not the state:/p
/div
,
blockquote class=paragraph paragraph--type--blockquote paragraph--view-mode--default paragraph--235238
div class=fs-lg
pstrongLiberty./strong Among Americans’ most fundamental rights is the right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force: anbsp;right that, in turn, derives from the inseparability of free will from what it means to be human. Liberty is indivisible, and political freedom cannot long exist without economic freedom./p
pstrongThe pursuit of happiness. /strongMost individuals are happiest in loving families, and within stable and prosperous communities in which parents are free to engage in meaningful work, and to raise and educate their children according to their values./p
/div
/blockquote
,
div class=paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default paragraph--235239 fs-sm
pYou may not agree with the line about families (these are conservatives, after all), but the emphasis here is clearly on people—the state/nation is as yet unmentioned (though perhaps implicitly referenced in the part about “arbitrary force”)—and is anbsp;stark contrast to the natcon priorities. The contrast on education—serving the state (natcon) or parents’ values (freecon)—may be the most telling example of all./p
pFreecon Principle 3nbsp;continues the theme, prioritizing free enterprise (the “foundation of prosperity”) and decrying “government intervention and private cronyism” that makes Americans’ lives unaffordable. Beyond that, the state is again omitted, and while certain terms have some wiggle room (e.g., “free tradeem with free people/em”) that might permit government interference, the emphasis is clearly on private action, human freedom, and emlimits/em on government action. Principles 4nbsp;and 5nbsp;then address that action more directly, but only as advocating limits thereon: in particular, fiscal responsibility and the rule of law. Principle 6nbsp;is on immigration, and while not nearly enough of anbsp;full‐throated embrace of expanded immigration for my tastes, it again makes clear that policy should be implemented to “advance the interests and values of emAmerican citizens/em”—not the “nation‐state.” Principle 7nbsp;supports federalism in an almost‐unqualified manner. Principles 8 (on race) and 10 (on speech and belief) again emphasize individual and economic freedom. And it’s only Principle 9—on foreign policy—that ever mentions anbsp;national interest (“American foreign policy must be judged by one criterion above all: its service to the just interests of the United States.”), but, even then, freedom and individual liberty are mentioned./p
pFrom all of this, clear and fundamental differences emerge between these two groups on the relationship between the state and the individual, and the role of each in American politics and life. In the natcon document, the state—the “national interest”—is first (and anthropomorphized), and the people are anbsp;distant second (“liberty” and “freedom” are even lower, but that’s anbsp;discussion for another time). Freecons take the exact opposite approach: their default human liberty, and state action is the (limited) exception. They prioritize—as the Declaration of Independence did—individual rights and the primacy of the empeople/em over their government:/p
/div
,
blockquote class=paragraph paragraph--type--blockquote paragraph--view-mode--default paragraph--235240
div class=fs-lg
pWe hold these truths to be self‐evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness./p
/div
/blockquote
,
div class=paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default paragraph--235241 fs-sm
pThis is also, of course, anbsp;classicallynbsp;emconservative/emnbsp;view of American government and the nation’s founding. Asnbsp;a href=https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/07/04/george-f-will-construe/ target=_blankGeorge Will/anbsp;(another freecon signatory) explained anbsp;few years ago, the Declaration guided the Constitution’s framers when they created “an institutional architecture that would achieve their intention: to establish governance that accords with the common sense of their time, which was that government is properly instituted to ‘secure’ the preexisting natural rights referenced in the Declaration.” Matthew Continetti, who wrote anbsp;recentnbsp;a href=https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/matthew-continetti/the-right/9781541600515/?lens=basic-books target=_blankbook/anbsp;on the American right, adds that the freecon statement is perhaps most remarkable in “that it had to be written at all” because conservatives since the 1930s have “placed freedom at the heart of their political program”—a program resistant to control by centralized bureaucracies; supportive of constitutionally limited government, free markets, individual choice and competition; anchored on the American founding and an individualistic culture suspicious of authority; and almost universally concerned about the dangers of “unconstrained government.” (And, Inbsp;should add,nbsp;a href=https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/capitolism/trustbusting-freebritney-and-the/ target=_blankfor good reason/a.)/p
pIn any statements like these, there’s an inevitable amount of strategic ambiguity to entice signatories and commenters. But, even with the usual fuzziness, the freecons’ overall messages—and their fundamental difference from the natcons (whose statement omits the Declaration entirely)—couldn’t be clearer. Asnbsp;a href=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2023/07/13/freedom_conservatives_will_keep_america_great_149478.html?callback=inamp;code=YZMWMDKYMJUTNJCWZS0ZZDE1LWI1ODKTNZQYZMU2OGE2ZDBMamp;state=bb20b7fd41414e7ea9a38bc5bd6449ba target=_blankHood put it/anbsp;in his op‐ed: “We think Washington has too much power and our states, communities, private associations, and household[s] have too little.” How many natcons would agree with that?nbsp;/p
pNot so many, I’d guess. Indeed, here’s Sen.nbsp;a href=https://jackmurphylive.libsyn.com/jd-vance-jml-070 target=_blankJ.D. Vance/a—obviously not anbsp;natcon spokesman but still one of their champions—in 2021 (emphasis mine):/p
/div
,
blockquote class=paragraph paragraph--type--blockquote paragraph--view-mode--default paragraph--235242
div class=fs-lg
pSo anbsp;lot of conservatives have said we should deconstruct the administrative state. We should basically eliminate the administrative state. And I’m sympathetic to that project, but another option is that strongwe should just seize the administrative state for our own purposes/strong. We should fire all of the people. Inbsp;think Trump is gonna run again in 2024. Inbsp;think he’ll probably win again in 2024, and he’ll win by anbsp;margin such that he’ll be the president of the United States in January of 2025. Inbsp;think what Trump should do, if Inbsp;was giving him one piece of advice: Fire every single mid‐level bureaucrat. Every civil servant in the administrative state. Replace them with our people, and when the courts—because you will get taken to court—and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did, and say, “The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.”/p
/div
/blockquote
,
div class=paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default paragraph--235243 fs-sm
pElsewhere henbsp;a href=https://thefederalist.com/2021/05/18/why-j-d-vance-is-very-seriously-considering-a-senate-bid/ target=_blankwas even/anbsp;more blunt:nbsp;em“/emIf we’re going to actually really effect real change in the country, it will require us completely replacing the existing ruling class with another ruling class.” As Avik Roynbsp;a href=https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/07/freedom-conservatism-is-different-and-that-matters/ target=_blankdocuments/anbsp;over atnbsp;emNational Review/emnbsp;(and as others have done for anbsp;while now), Vance is not the only natcon with this view. So, while Vance’s take might not be anbsp;consensus or even majority “natcon” opinion, it’s most definitely one that their mission statement—and its prioritization of the “national interest”—permits. Would the freecon statement do the same? Most definitely not./p
pstrongAnd This Inevitably Affects Policy/strong/p
pThis distinction is not merely rhetorical—it drives big differences in how natcons and freecons approach and craft public policy, with the former taking anbsp;far more expansive—indeed,nbsp;emprogressive/em—view of where and how the federal government may and should intervene on various policy issues. This includes, by the way, issues and entities about which many freecons are also quite concerned—things that most freecons agree are anbsp;nationwide problem but wouldn’t ever condone bringing the government into the matter. Roynbsp;a href=https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/07/freedom-conservatism-is-different-and-that-matters/ target=_blankgets at some of this/anbsp;in his piece, highlighting that, while he shares natcons’ concerns about cronyism, corporate power, and Chinese government influence, freecon solutions center on freedom, markets, and both constitutional and pragmatic limits on government action. Natcons’ first instinct, on the other hand, is seizing and using state power.nbsp;/p
pThat embrace, it should be noted, goes well beyond federalism and the administrative state—and beyond discrete policy issues like immigration, trade, or industrial policy. Indeed, seeminglynbsp;emwherever/emnbsp;there’s anbsp;perceived enemy (Big Tech, Wall Street, “the left”, etc.) or problem (economic or cultural) challenging the (undefined) “national interest,” natcons’ eager default response is tonbsp;a href=https://themessenger.com/opinion/new-gop-abandons-invisible-hand-of-the-market-for-heavy-hand-of-government target=_blankenlist the government to address it/a. Here are ones Inbsp;can think of just off the top of my head: Tech policy (e.g., Section 230); corporate speech (e.g, Disney/Florida, social media, ESG); antitrust; education (especially “anti‐woke” stuff); financial regulation (e.g., buybacks and “financialization”); labor policy (e.g., atnbsp;a href=https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/03/12/amazon-union-not-helping-working-class-economy-column/6947823002/ target=_blankAmazon/a); transportation policy (e.g., the Railway Safety Act); family policy (e.g., child allowances); and entitlements (a href=https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1680613340178182144?s=20 target=_blanksigh/a)./p
pIf this is “conservative government,” I’d hate to see what the progressive version is.nbsp;/p
pMore seriously, much of this policynbsp;emis/emnbsp;progressive, as natcon politicians frequently join with their left‐leaning (if not far‐left) colleagues to advance legislation along these policy lines. My Cato colleague Ryan Bourne, in fact, has collected numerous examples—Vance and Bernie Sanders on trade with developing countries; Josh Hawley and Amy Klobuchar on antitrust and the “Gilded Age”; Marco Rubio and Sherrod Brown on stock buybacks; Tom Cotton and Jared Bernstein on industrial policy; Tucker Carlson and Elizabeth Warren on the “free market”—of natcons and card‐carrying progressives talking about policy in utterly indistinguishable ways. That’s not anbsp;coincidence; it stems from natcons’ sharing with progressives views on not only discrete policy, but on the role and power of government itself. And when they do debate and disagree, it’s (usually) onnbsp;emwhom/emnbsp;the state should support (or fight),nbsp;emnot/emnbsp;whether it should act at all.nbsp;/p
pThe latter question is where almost all conservativesnbsp;emused/emnbsp;to chime in, and freecons would presumably do so in the future./p
pstrongSumming It All Up/strong/p
pThe freecon manifesto isn’t perfect—I have my own disagreements, as donbsp;a href=https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/13/two-cheers-for-the-freedom-conservatism-statement-of-principles/ target=_blankother libertarians/anbsp;and old‐school conservatives (including Continetti). But there’s plenty in there to like—for anbsp;libertarian, classical liberal, or any other fan of the Declaration’s principles and constitutionally limited government–emespecially/emnbsp;when compared to the statist natcon alternative. These aren’t shades of gray in the same conservative newspaper, and the disagreements aren’t just on anbsp;handful of backpage policy issues. Instead, it’s the fundamental differences between natcons and freecons that drive their policy differences, not the other way around. Inbsp;don’t know which side the American right will ultimately choose, but it’s most definitely anbsp;choice—and anbsp;very big one at that./p
pstrongChart(s) of the Week/strong/p
pa href=https://twitter.com/mnolangray/status/1682487021481398272?s=20 target=_blankWho’s building?/a/p
/div
,
figure class=paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default paragraph--235244 spacer--nomargin--first-last-child figure responsive-embed-no-margin-wrapper
div class=figure__media
img loading=lazy src=/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs_2x/public/2023-07/lincicome-7-26-23-img-1.jpg?itok=TC0tPRzS width=476 height=874 alt=lincicome-7-26-23-img-1.jpg class=image-style-pubs-2x component-image /
/div
/figure
,
div class=paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default paragraph--235245 fs-sm
pa href=https://t.co/Q4rNFYMZiL target=_blankFederal spending drivers:/a/p
/div
,
figure class=paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default paragraph--235246 spacer--nomargin--first-last-child figure responsive-embed-no-margin-wrapper
div class=figure__media
img loading=lazy src=/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs_2x/public/2023-07/lincicome-7-26-23-img-2.jpg?itok=m3mylbAS width=560 height=469 alt=lincicome-7-26-23-img-2.jpg class=image-style-pubs-2x component-image /
/div
/figure
,
div class=paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default paragraph--235247 fs-sm
pa href=https://twitter.com/scottlincicome/status/1683094652155572225?s=20 target=_blankRe last week’s column on steel tariffs and cronyism… Drain the Swamp:/a/p
/div
,
figure class=paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default paragraph--235248 spacer--nomargin--first-last-child figure responsive-embed-no-margin-wrapper
div class=figure__media
img loading=lazy src=/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs_2x/public/2023-07/lincicome-7-26-23-img-3.jpg?itok=gpIj509c width=559 height=382 alt=lincicome-7-26-23-img-3.jpg class=image-style-pubs-2x component-image /
/div
/figure
,
div class=paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default paragraph--235249 fs-sm
pa href=https://twitter.com/AzizSunderji/status/1683556968626102273?s=20 target=_blankUseful way to think about changes in income/savings:/a/p
/div
,
figure class=paragraph paragraph--type--image paragraph--view-mode--default paragraph--235250 spacer--nomargin--first-last-child figure responsive-embed-no-margin-wrapper
div class=figure__media
img loading=lazy src=/sites/cato.org/files/styles/pubs_2x/public/2023-07/lincicome-7-26-23-img-5.jpg?itok=P-dMCZX3 width=560 height=700 alt=lincicome-7-26-23-img-5.jpg class=image-style-pubs-2x component-image /
/div
/figure