Posted on 04/03/2025 9:22:53 AM PDT by Heartlander
This week, Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, announced his organization’s support for President Trump’s trade policy. That includes backing Trump’s use of tariff threats to secure better trade deals with foreign nations.
The announcement reflects a broader shift underway at Heritage. Once a pillar of the conservative establishment, the think tank has moved toward a more populist, "America First" approach that challenges the traditional Republican consensus on trade.
Predictably, critics from the old guard — such as Jonah Goldberg and John Podhoretz — emerged from their irrelevant holes to denounce Heritage for its betrayal of “conservative principles.” But these men, who haven’t conserved a blessed thing, have lost sight of a foundational truth: Economies should serve nations — not the other way around.
In theory, free trade eliminates barriers to the flow of goods and services across borders. The promise is that open markets lead to greater competition, more efficiency, and lower prices for all. British economist David Ricardo developed the idea of comparative advantage to support this model, arguing that trade benefits both countries when each focuses on what it produces most efficiently.
As scholar Neema Parvini has noted, however, Ricardo’s theory rested on key assumptions — most notably that labor and capital would remain largely fixed. That assumption no longer holds.
Ricardo never imagined a world where illegal immigration surged across borders or where corporations moved profits overseas to build factories in lower-cost countries. In fact, he warned against detaching economic decisions from national loyalty.
Ricardo believed a man’s attachment to his country would lead him to accept smaller profits at home rather than seek higher returns abroad. He viewed that sense of national loyalty as a natural barrier against global capital flight — and a necessary one. It would be a tragedy, he warned, if that bond ever broke.
The economist most often cited by free trade absolutists understood that theoretical models only work when grounded in reality. In Ricardo’s view, trade made sense only if individuals valued their nations more than the pursuit of maximum profit.
In an ideal world, workers and corporations would prioritize national loyalty over global opportunity, and all countries would reduce trade barriers. But we do not live in that world.
Many nations — even U.S. allies — routinely use tariffs and subsidies to give their domestic industries an edge. They do this while benefiting from a global trading system that operates securely and reliably, largely at America’s expense.
These countries act unapologetically in their national interest. The United States should do the same.
Free trade is not a moral imperative or an inherent good. It is an economic policy rooted in a theory about how trade functions. Those who promote it without question often ignore both the historical context in which Ricardo developed the theory and the realities of today’s global economy.
If free trade benefits the American people, we should pursue it. If it does not, we should adopt a policy that does.
Political theorist Russell Kirk argued that conservatism should never become ideological. Its first obligation is to the well-being of a particular people. Conservatism isn't about abstract ideals or academic formulas — it’s about preserving a way of life, grounded in real communities and traditions.
Those who champion theory over lived experience are not conservatives. They are ideologues cloaked in the language of the right, often more interested in intellectual posturing than in preserving American life.
This is why rigid, neoconservative approaches to trade have so often failed. They claim to “conserve,” but in practice, they have eroded the very institutions and livelihoods they were meant 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 results have been disastrous.
Other nations talk about free trade but act in their own interest. They impose tariffs, protect key industries, and prioritize their citizens. They live in the real world — not in an academic simulation. It’s long past time for the United States to do the same.
Economists and other academics play an important role in society, but — as the COVID-19 catastrophe made clear — they should not have the final say in public policy. Experts offer valuable insights, but their knowledge often applies narrowly to specific fields. They tend to struggle when asked to apply that knowledge in broader, real-world contexts.
That’s why nations are governed by statesmen, not scientists or economists.
An economist may point out that producing antibiotics in China reduces costs. But that same economist cannot weigh the national risk if China, the sole supplier, becomes the source of a disease that only those now-imported antibiotics can treat. In that scenario, no amount of economic efficiency will save American lives.
Shifting U.S. trade policy to protect American interests does not betray conservative principles — it affirms them. The first duty of conservatism is to preserve the American people and their way of life.
Conservatives should adopt economic policies that serve that goal, but we must never treat those policies as ends in themselves. The economy is a tool, not a purpose.
Neoconservatives may mourn the loss of ideological purity, but their abstractions should not define national policy. We are a nation, not just a market. The only test that matters is whether a policy puts Americans first.
A lot of companies bet against America by building their business around buying and selling things overseas.
That was their mistake. There will be some turmoil as these companies get wiped out, but in the long run America will be stronger.
To be fair to those companies, many of them were pressured to do so by the tariffs and such that other countries have had on the U.S. They couldn't sell American made products in other countries, so they made the products in those countries. I see those companies as both part of the victims and part of the problem (they moved production for other reasons too like cheap/slave labor).
It's kinda like I see Ford's and GM's push for EV's. The political left told them repeatedly that the left will regulate them out of business unless they did so.
Conservatism without Nationalism is like Faith without Works.
Yes but you get into the big question - how much? If they benefit do like the Japanese do on rice - 800% tariffs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.