The American conservative movement has been enriched with a new flavor: freedom conservatism. Unlike national conservatism, which aspires to find a common value ground for conservatives globally, this new strain of political thought is a distinctly American brand. It manifested itself this past summer in a statement of principles and has gained a respectable momentum since then.
In form, tone, and purpose, the FreeCon statement is different from the National Conservatism Statement of Principles. Rather than discussing philosophical principles and political theory, the FreeCon statement has the appearance of a declaration of policy intentions.
There is nothing wrong with this. Generally speaking, regardless of what sub-brand of conservatism we belong to, we on the right side of the ideological aisle do not do enough to transform our ideas into actual policy. That said, as I will explain below, starting with a policy declaration instead of a bona fide set of principles is problematic. In the case of the FreeCon initiative, it leads to naive, even irresponsible policy positions.
For full disclosure, I firmly stand behind the NatCon statement, but I nevertheless found it inspiring to learn about the FreeCon initiative. Since we are all conservatives, it makes sense—does it not?—that we find common ground and collaborate on our common denominators.
Unfortunately, in my efforts at finding out more about the FreeCon movement, I have not encountered the same willingness to seek common ground. On the contrary, outspoken FreeCons are quick to separate themselves from us NatCons. A telling example is Dan Mitchell, a prominent economist and a world-leading tax policy expert. Mitchell recently penned an article over at his blog International Liberty where he directed his opening salvo squarely at national conservatism. Without any reference to the founding principles of national conservatism, Mitchell claims that we NatCons “in some cases … want new programs to increase Washington’s power over the economy.” He also suggests that we “want to allow existing programs to expand … which means massive tax increases.”
A couple of other FreeCons have criticized national conservatism in similar verbiage. Mitchell, to his defense, provides references to people he defines as NatCons, thereby exemplifying how they harbor ideas that could be said to grow government.
I emphasize “could be said to”; although it would be productive to discuss Mitchell’s individual examples and the extent to which he represents them accurately, there is a more pressing point to be made about the freedom-conservatism initiative. Suffice it to say that on the point about government spending, Mitchell’s dancing on the line of accuracy is vastly overshadowed by Ryan Bourne of the Cato Institute. After complaining that the NatCon statement of principles “doesn’t mention the [federal government] debt,” Bourne claims that the statement advocates more spending “for rearmament, public research, manufacturing, and family welfare transfers.”
Bourne is in the regrettable position of not understanding the difference between a statement of principles and a declaration of policy intentions. We NatCons have delivered the former; the FreeCons have provided the latter.
As for Bourne’s references to specific spending proposals, there is no mention whatsoever of “family welfare transfers” in the NatCon statement of principles.
Perhaps Ryan Bourne illustrates better than any FreeCon why it matters to start a political movement as we have done, with the philosophical foundation. As someone who toiled in the trenches of public policy for many years, I appreciate conservative thinkers who want to transform theory into reality, but I also know that without a firm theoretical foundation, the policy ideas we provide ultimately become an assortment of ad-hoc proposals.
Philosophy and political theory provide the common denominator that gives a political movement its purpose, its direction, and its vision.
The FreeCons do not have this, and no policy issue shows this better than their unconditional defense of free-market capitalism. Like us NatCons, the FreeCons support free markets and capitalism, but unlike us, they become irresponsibly naive in their support.
Their fundamental error is to believe that, in the free market, there is always congruence between economic and moral outcomes.
As a case in point, Vance Ginn, chief economist of the Pelican Institute in Louisiana and owner and publisher of the podcast Let People Prosper, recently appeared on the Future of Freedom podcast to contrast his views on international trade against those of John Hendrickson of Iowans for Tax Relief. Hendrickson expressed concerns about free trade not being free at the other end, such as when China uses state powers to manipulate the conditions of trade to its favor.
In response, Ginn gave a passionate speech in favor of keeping government out of trade completely. When challenged by the host on China’s open currency manipulation, Ginn brushes off the criticism, trying instead to claim that such manipulation cannot succeed in the free market.
In short, Ginn believes that on the free market, economic and moral outcomes always walk in lockstep. Yet, as the Chinese example illustrates, he who has enough power will manipulate the market until it is no longer free. This is precisely what China has done.
Ginn then moves on to make some surprisingly ignorant comments about national accounts and the way economists define gross domestic product. More importantly, though, his overall defense of free trade ardently refuses to recognize the limitations of human ability.
We find the same refusal embedded in the FreeCon statement of principles, but it is important to note that the problem is not their defense of the free market per se. On the contrary, when it comes to economic and individual freedom as founding principles of a civilized society, there is much agreement between these two lines of conservative thought.
Consider the first principle of the FreeCon statement:
Among Americans’ most fundamental rights is the right to be free from the restrictions of arbitrary force: a right that, in turn, derives from the inseparability of free will from what it means to be human.
Compare this to the third principle of the NatCon statement, which proposes “a strong but limited state, subject to constitutional restraints and a division of powers.” This principle also points to the dire need for reductions in the administrative powers of government.
The FreeCon statement goes on to tie individual freedom to economic freedom. The sixth principle of the NatCon statement concurs:
We believe that an economy based on private property and free enterprise is best suited to promoting the prosperity of the nation and accords with traditions of individual liberty that are central to the Angl0-American political tradition. We reject the socialist principle, which supposes that economic activity of the nation can be conducted in accordance with a rational plan dictated by the state.
In other words, there is plenty of common ground between these two lines of conservative thought.
As mentioned, our disagreements begin at the end of the human ability to unify economic and moral outcomes. There is a common theme in FreeCon reasoning that human society has no need for higher values. This is surprising, given that they embrace the American Declaration of Independence. This brilliant document is very clearly founded on higher values.
While we are on the subject, Jack Butler of the National Review, a founding member of the FreeCon movement, faults NatCons for not mentioning the Declaration at all in their statement of principles. Butler seems to fail to understand that, again, the NatCon statement is meant as an international conservative unifier; the FreeCon statement, by contrast, is unconcerned with the world beyond America’s borders.
With his focus on the Declaration, Butler highlights how the FreeCons, in their pursuit of higher values, made a halt at the Independence Hall in Philadelphia. Unconcerned with what lies beyond the Declaration of Independence, the FreeCons fail to understand that even from an American perspective, the Declaration is a necessary but not sufficient component of the moral foundation of a free society.
Simply put, as America’s Founding Fathers illustrated, we as humans need Christian values to guide us to morally right decisions in life.
More importantly, that need does not stop at the doorstep of the free market.
Since I have previously outlined the theoretical argument for why free-market capitalism needs God, and how in His absence capitalism becomes its own worst enemy, let me turn to a more practical aspect of this problem.
On May 4th this year, National Public Radio, NPR, reported on the horrific practice of illegal child labor in America. The heart-wrenching examples in their story highlight children who have come unaccompanied into the United States—which essentially means they are victims of human trafficking:
- A 15-year-old girl from Guatemala works “eight-hour shifts right after school” packaging Cheerios;
- A 12-year-old girl “who was working overnight stamping auto parts;”
- Another 12-year-old “was put to work roofing houses;”
- A 13-year-old “who worked 12-hour shifts at an egg farm, six days a week.”
Quoting an investigative reporter from the New York Times, the NPR story suggests that there could be more than 125,000 illegal child immigrants working for “household brands” of consumer staples produced by big corporations.
The abuse of trafficked child labor in the American economy is apparently so pervasive that it has caught the attention of U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). Based on the New York Times reporting, Senator Hawley
sent a letter Tuesday to Tyson Foods CEO Donnie King sounding the alarm on allegations that the company “has actively participated in dangerous and illegal labor practices.” Hawley references “distressing cases where migrant children … suffered severe injuries or died while working illegally in chicken processing plants.”
Let us pause here and look at this situation from the viewpoint of our two conservative statements of principles. Both FreeCons and NatCons, and all other morally sound people, are outraged at this apparently industrialized abuse of children.
The problem is not that our moral compasses differ. They are well aligned. The problem is that this abuse of children happens at all, especially in an economically and supposedly morally advanced country like the United States of America.
I do not doubt for a moment that similar child-labor abuse happens in Europe as well, but that only reinforces the need for an answer to the inevitable question: as an economic system, does free-market capitalism have any means to stop this and other immoral economic behavior?
To answer this question, we need to recognize how human nature operates within free-market capitalism. As I explain in my article “The Paradox of Capitalism,” entrepreneurs have a strong and rational incentive to try to remove the limitations on their profits that the free market imposes. A monopolist makes a lot more money than a seller in a freely competitive market. The pursuit of profits—intrinsic to free-market capitalism—drives the entrepreneur to find ways to limit the impact of competition.
In short, the savvy entrepreneur will explore all means possible to expand his sales, raise his profits, and lower his costs. Again, this is rational behavior—but that does not mean it is moral.
Returning to the painful issue of child labor, the very fact that it exists, and allegedly is practiced on an industrial scale, tells us that, according to the premises of free-market capitalism, the practice is rational. As supporters of capitalism, we are obliged to recognize this, and to conclude that capitalism, while superior as an economic system, cannot function properly outside the moral framework that Christianity provides.
The National Conservative Statement of Principles is founded in Christian values. Therefore, it can guide the entrepreneur when he reaches the fork in the road where economic and moral outcomes part ways.
He can choose good before greed.
What answers do FreeCons offer? So far, all I have heard from them is an unlimited belief in the free market as the unchallenged arbiter of good and evil.
FreeCons, Capitalism, and Corporate Greed
The American conservative movement has been enriched with a new flavor: freedom conservatism. Unlike national conservatism, which aspires to find a common value ground for conservatives globally, this new strain of political thought is a distinctly American brand. It manifested itself this past summer in a statement of principles and has gained a respectable momentum since then.
In form, tone, and purpose, the FreeCon statement is different from the National Conservatism Statement of Principles. Rather than discussing philosophical principles and political theory, the FreeCon statement has the appearance of a declaration of policy intentions.
There is nothing wrong with this. Generally speaking, regardless of what sub-brand of conservatism we belong to, we on the right side of the ideological aisle do not do enough to transform our ideas into actual policy. That said, as I will explain below, starting with a policy declaration instead of a bona fide set of principles is problematic. In the case of the FreeCon initiative, it leads to naive, even irresponsible policy positions.
For full disclosure, I firmly stand behind the NatCon statement, but I nevertheless found it inspiring to learn about the FreeCon initiative. Since we are all conservatives, it makes sense—does it not?—that we find common ground and collaborate on our common denominators.
Unfortunately, in my efforts at finding out more about the FreeCon movement, I have not encountered the same willingness to seek common ground. On the contrary, outspoken FreeCons are quick to separate themselves from us NatCons. A telling example is Dan Mitchell, a prominent economist and a world-leading tax policy expert. Mitchell recently penned an article over at his blog International Liberty where he directed his opening salvo squarely at national conservatism. Without any reference to the founding principles of national conservatism, Mitchell claims that we NatCons “in some cases … want new programs to increase Washington’s power over the economy.” He also suggests that we “want to allow existing programs to expand … which means massive tax increases.”
A couple of other FreeCons have criticized national conservatism in similar verbiage. Mitchell, to his defense, provides references to people he defines as NatCons, thereby exemplifying how they harbor ideas that could be said to grow government.
I emphasize “could be said to”; although it would be productive to discuss Mitchell’s individual examples and the extent to which he represents them accurately, there is a more pressing point to be made about the freedom-conservatism initiative. Suffice it to say that on the point about government spending, Mitchell’s dancing on the line of accuracy is vastly overshadowed by Ryan Bourne of the Cato Institute. After complaining that the NatCon statement of principles “doesn’t mention the [federal government] debt,” Bourne claims that the statement advocates more spending “for rearmament, public research, manufacturing, and family welfare transfers.”
Bourne is in the regrettable position of not understanding the difference between a statement of principles and a declaration of policy intentions. We NatCons have delivered the former; the FreeCons have provided the latter.
As for Bourne’s references to specific spending proposals, there is no mention whatsoever of “family welfare transfers” in the NatCon statement of principles.
Perhaps Ryan Bourne illustrates better than any FreeCon why it matters to start a political movement as we have done, with the philosophical foundation. As someone who toiled in the trenches of public policy for many years, I appreciate conservative thinkers who want to transform theory into reality, but I also know that without a firm theoretical foundation, the policy ideas we provide ultimately become an assortment of ad-hoc proposals.
Philosophy and political theory provide the common denominator that gives a political movement its purpose, its direction, and its vision.
The FreeCons do not have this, and no policy issue shows this better than their unconditional defense of free-market capitalism. Like us NatCons, the FreeCons support free markets and capitalism, but unlike us, they become irresponsibly naive in their support.
Their fundamental error is to believe that, in the free market, there is always congruence between economic and moral outcomes.
As a case in point, Vance Ginn, chief economist of the Pelican Institute in Louisiana and owner and publisher of the podcast Let People Prosper, recently appeared on the Future of Freedom podcast to contrast his views on international trade against those of John Hendrickson of Iowans for Tax Relief. Hendrickson expressed concerns about free trade not being free at the other end, such as when China uses state powers to manipulate the conditions of trade to its favor.
In response, Ginn gave a passionate speech in favor of keeping government out of trade completely. When challenged by the host on China’s open currency manipulation, Ginn brushes off the criticism, trying instead to claim that such manipulation cannot succeed in the free market.
In short, Ginn believes that on the free market, economic and moral outcomes always walk in lockstep. Yet, as the Chinese example illustrates, he who has enough power will manipulate the market until it is no longer free. This is precisely what China has done.
Ginn then moves on to make some surprisingly ignorant comments about national accounts and the way economists define gross domestic product. More importantly, though, his overall defense of free trade ardently refuses to recognize the limitations of human ability.
We find the same refusal embedded in the FreeCon statement of principles, but it is important to note that the problem is not their defense of the free market per se. On the contrary, when it comes to economic and individual freedom as founding principles of a civilized society, there is much agreement between these two lines of conservative thought.
Consider the first principle of the FreeCon statement:
Compare this to the third principle of the NatCon statement, which proposes “a strong but limited state, subject to constitutional restraints and a division of powers.” This principle also points to the dire need for reductions in the administrative powers of government.
The FreeCon statement goes on to tie individual freedom to economic freedom. The sixth principle of the NatCon statement concurs:
In other words, there is plenty of common ground between these two lines of conservative thought.
As mentioned, our disagreements begin at the end of the human ability to unify economic and moral outcomes. There is a common theme in FreeCon reasoning that human society has no need for higher values. This is surprising, given that they embrace the American Declaration of Independence. This brilliant document is very clearly founded on higher values.
While we are on the subject, Jack Butler of the National Review, a founding member of the FreeCon movement, faults NatCons for not mentioning the Declaration at all in their statement of principles. Butler seems to fail to understand that, again, the NatCon statement is meant as an international conservative unifier; the FreeCon statement, by contrast, is unconcerned with the world beyond America’s borders.
With his focus on the Declaration, Butler highlights how the FreeCons, in their pursuit of higher values, made a halt at the Independence Hall in Philadelphia. Unconcerned with what lies beyond the Declaration of Independence, the FreeCons fail to understand that even from an American perspective, the Declaration is a necessary but not sufficient component of the moral foundation of a free society.
Simply put, as America’s Founding Fathers illustrated, we as humans need Christian values to guide us to morally right decisions in life.
More importantly, that need does not stop at the doorstep of the free market.
Since I have previously outlined the theoretical argument for why free-market capitalism needs God, and how in His absence capitalism becomes its own worst enemy, let me turn to a more practical aspect of this problem.
On May 4th this year, National Public Radio, NPR, reported on the horrific practice of illegal child labor in America. The heart-wrenching examples in their story highlight children who have come unaccompanied into the United States—which essentially means they are victims of human trafficking:
Quoting an investigative reporter from the New York Times, the NPR story suggests that there could be more than 125,000 illegal child immigrants working for “household brands” of consumer staples produced by big corporations.
The abuse of trafficked child labor in the American economy is apparently so pervasive that it has caught the attention of U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). Based on the New York Times reporting, Senator Hawley
Let us pause here and look at this situation from the viewpoint of our two conservative statements of principles. Both FreeCons and NatCons, and all other morally sound people, are outraged at this apparently industrialized abuse of children.
The problem is not that our moral compasses differ. They are well aligned. The problem is that this abuse of children happens at all, especially in an economically and supposedly morally advanced country like the United States of America.
I do not doubt for a moment that similar child-labor abuse happens in Europe as well, but that only reinforces the need for an answer to the inevitable question: as an economic system, does free-market capitalism have any means to stop this and other immoral economic behavior?
To answer this question, we need to recognize how human nature operates within free-market capitalism. As I explain in my article “The Paradox of Capitalism,” entrepreneurs have a strong and rational incentive to try to remove the limitations on their profits that the free market imposes. A monopolist makes a lot more money than a seller in a freely competitive market. The pursuit of profits—intrinsic to free-market capitalism—drives the entrepreneur to find ways to limit the impact of competition.
In short, the savvy entrepreneur will explore all means possible to expand his sales, raise his profits, and lower his costs. Again, this is rational behavior—but that does not mean it is moral.
Returning to the painful issue of child labor, the very fact that it exists, and allegedly is practiced on an industrial scale, tells us that, according to the premises of free-market capitalism, the practice is rational. As supporters of capitalism, we are obliged to recognize this, and to conclude that capitalism, while superior as an economic system, cannot function properly outside the moral framework that Christianity provides.
The National Conservative Statement of Principles is founded in Christian values. Therefore, it can guide the entrepreneur when he reaches the fork in the road where economic and moral outcomes part ways.
He can choose good before greed.
What answers do FreeCons offer? So far, all I have heard from them is an unlimited belief in the free market as the unchallenged arbiter of good and evil.
READ NEXT
Merry Christmas from The European Conservative
A Defense of the Small Christmas Ritual
Trump Broadened the Tent; Europe Must Follow Suit