For years, populists from the left and the right have complained that Washington is in the thrall of libertarians, market fundamentalists or perhaps Neoliberals– although there are very few politically influential figures who describe themselves as such.
Recent events should put an end to these complaints: with the election of Republican Senator JD Vance (Ohio) as presidential candidate and, in a different form, the election of Vice President Kamala Harris, American politics is now in the grip of a form of neo-populism that is implicitly based on the rejection of this synthesis and, in particular, on the rejection of the free-market, limited-government worldview.
This, in turn, has created a new class of politically homeless people: you can call them fusionists, classical liberals, libertarians—but those who prioritize economic freedom have essentially no place in any of the major parties. This is a clear departure from core American values—and a disturbing departure from the worldview that has made America prosperous and powerful.
The transformation is most evident in the GOP, thanks to the nomination of Vance as presidential candidate. Vance, according to most Accountswas chosen in a moment of confidence, as a designated successor to build on and enhance Donald Trump’s core appeal, rather than as a counterweight to the former president’s electoral weaknesses.
Vance has become one of the GOP’s most prominent neo-populists over the past half decade. He is a proponent of tariffs and trade restrictions, a Participants in the auto workers’ picket lineand a Sharp critic of foreign workersHe is even Compliments to Lina Khanthe Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, who helped the new aggressive (if largely unsuccessful) approach to antitrust enforcement. Vance, who is among those who regularly lash out at libertarians, combines the opposition to individual liberty with the opposition to economic liberty – and he is Trump’s newly chosen successor.
Modern Democrats have never exactly been the party of limited government. Yet Harris appears poised to extend the Biden-era government largesse, during which the party pursued a series of policies aimed at bolstering unions and industrial policies that supported favored industries and factory jobs through numerous large-scale spending bills.
This spending bill was followed by the largest increase in inflation in four decades, which also contributed to it. Harris is also now running on a policy that prohibits gouging on food and grocery stores. Some Harris supporters defend this policy as a mere exercise in antitrust enforcement, but critics argue quite convincingly that the policy as described amounts to a disturbing new system of government price controls.
It also proposes a large-scale subsidy program for first-time home buyers, coupled with Tax incentives worth $40 billion for builders who want to build new houses.
If Biden was a liberal with a big state, then Harris is a larger Government liberal.
What is striking about this particular political moment is that a new elite consensus seems to be emerging on both the left and the right that is skeptical and, in some cases, even hostile to free-market ideals and principles.
The neopopulist consensus is still rough, but broadly it supports supporting domestic labor, cracking down on immigration, using taxes and spending incentives to implement industrial policy, and imposing tariffs and trade restrictions for reasons of national security, job creation, or international competitiveness. In particular, the Biden administration left most of Trump’s tariffs in place – and in some cases has increased it.
Whatever their other differences, leaders and emerging intellectuals in both parties seem to agree that the most important thing is to keep classical liberals, libertarians and economic freedom supporters out.
It’s true that the parties have never fully embraced those values and have even distanced themselves from them at times. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a self-described socialist, has long helped pull Democrats to the left on economic issues. Former President George W. Bush imposed tariffs on imported steel, and his brand of “compassionate conservatism” was partly an attempt to dampen the party’s libertarian tendencies.
Until recently, there was still a place for those who valued individual freedom and markets. They were seen as valuable or at least necessary partners: As recently as 2012, it was none other than Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). has turned to the libertariansThat same year, former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), perhaps best known for his welfare reform proposals, ran on the Republican ticket. Trump’s first vice president, Mike Pence, was also a link to the Republicans’ Reagan past.
There may be some holdouts in the party who still advocate a more orthodox, market-friendly economic policy. The speech by Speaker of the House Mike Johnson at the Republican Party Convention paid homage among the “core principles of American conservatism,” which included “fiscal responsibility,” “free markets,” and “limited government.” But with Trump and Vance as the party’s governing avatars, it seems likely that these values will remain lame, outdated platitudes.
That is a pity. Personal freedom and market freedom are fundamental American political and economic values. This synthesis is clearly rooted in the American founding and has long been deeply embedded in American life. In the 1830s, when America was still a young nation, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that “the audacity of the enterprise is the main cause of its rapid progress, its strength and its greatness.” This audacity has made America rich to an extent that is almost taken for granted: today the vast majority of American states richer than most European countriesThe neopopulists take this wealth for granted and then propose policies – tariffs, labor market regulations, massive new spending programs – that would poorer America, slow its progress, and weaken its strength and greatness.
The rise of neopopulism and its rejection of the free market means that those who still support bold entrepreneurship have no one to root for in this year’s presidential election.
What should the politically homeless do? Apart from mourning – and perhaps Drink— they can push for narrowly focused, bipartisan deals. After all, some of the country’s most effective—if not always most celebrated—policy advances, from prison reform to marijuana legalization, have been made this way. And they can lay the groundwork for a comeback by building (or modifying) institutions that support their ideas, while recognizing that this approach may take years to pay off.
Most of the time, they can look beyond the present moment because they know that their view is anchored in the U.S. Constitution, with its system of checks and balances, judicial review, distrust of both mob enthusiasm and individual power, and guarantee of individual rights.
In the meantime, today’s politically homeless can at least take comfort in the fact that at least no one can seriously complain that libertarians are currently in charge.
