American Economic Forum: A Defense

O n the subject of political economy, Thomas Jefferson, the Sage of Monticello and defender of agrarian republicanism, famously wrote: “The maxim to be applied will depend on the circumstance which then shall exist. For in so complicated a science as political economy, no one axiom can be laid down as wise and expedient for all times and circumstances.”

Indeed, Mr. Jefferson lived by that mantra. A vocal and vociferous critique of Alexander Hamilton’s economic designs during the Washington administration, he did an about-face later in life after learning hard lessons in dealing with the British.

In an 1816 letter to Benjamin Austin, he refutes those contemporaries who would use his earlier writings as a proof text to “continue our dependence on England for manufactures,” lamenting that the circumstances have changed dramatically over the past 30 years and that the arguments of his critics were nothing more than a “stalking horse to cover their disloyal propensities to keep us in eternal vassalage to a foreign & unfriendly people.”

In short, Jefferson was now all-in on the “Made in America” agenda, forcefully asserting that “he . . . who is now against domestic manufacture must be for reducing us either to dependence on that foreign nation, or to be clothed in skins, & to live like wild beasts in dens & caverns.”

The example of Thomas Jefferson’s evolution on matters of trade and manufacturing does not represent moral relativism or ignorance about the fundamental laws of economics. Rather, it provides a model for how conservative statesman should exercise prudence in their defense of the American nation and economic freedom. Last weekend, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute — which was founded in 1953 with William F. Buckley Jr. serving as its first president — co-hosted the American Economic Forum with the Heritage Foundation and other like-minded groups to accomplish that very purpose.

In light of the challenges facing America today, we gathered to explore how conservatives should prudentially apply the wisdom of the past to the existential challenges of our day: inflation, globalization, financialization, environmental conservation, immigration, monopolization, cronyism, and great-power competition. The conference included an ideologically diverse group of speakers representing libertarianism, fusionism, nationalism, and post-liberalism and represented a cross-section of conservative institutions such as Hillsdale College, the American Conservative, American Moment, the Lincoln Network, and more. While some have argued in these pages that “government planning” and “market skepticism” stole the show, we disagree.

Throughout the weekend, speakers put forward a vision for conservative political economy that’s consonant with both Americanism and conservatism. In order to better articulate the substance of that vision for a free and humane economy, we must first turn to American history. For all of their differences, the founders overwhelmingly agreed on the following economic principles that helped to make our nation the most prosperous in the history of the world: private property, economic freedom, sound money, and the rule of law. These concepts were true at the time of the Founding, and they should still guide conservatives today.

The Founders also had disagreements on important, but less fundamental economic questions, such as the federal assumption of state wartime debts, the creation of a national bank, subsidies and tariffs to promote domestic manufacturing, and infrastructure. These disagreements echoed throughout American history in the form of debates between supporters of Hamilton and Jefferson, Clay and Jackson, Taft and Eisenhower, and to a lesser extent, Reagan and Trump.

In fact, from its inception, these same areas of consensus and divergence marked debates in the conservative intellectual movement. For example, ISI’s founding donor, J. Howard Pew of Sun Oil, was a staunch critic of the New Deal and defender of economic freedom, yet he resigned from the board of the Foundation for Economic Education in the early Sixties because his protectionist views clashed with the free-trade ideology of the institution. Russell Kirk railed against libertarians, calling them “chirping sectaries,” and initially refused to join ISI’s board because he thought that “individualism ends in anarchy; spiritually, it is a hideous solitude.” Similar issues animated disagreements over the course of the past half century between thinkers like Meyer and Bozell, Buckley and Buchanan, and, more recently, French and Ahmari.

Nevertheless, it’s important to recognize the consensus — both then and now — succinctly described by Tom West in his book The Political Theory of the American Founding: “What was essential was that the market at home be free. The terms of trade with other nations was a matter to be determined by considerations of interest — above all, the preservation of the American nation, the first duty of government.”

At the American Economic Forum, a new consensus built on these foundations took shape. According to audience polling, a majority of the attendees said that “economic freedom” or “entrepreneurship and innovation” should be the primary aim of conservative economic policy. Participants considered inflation and the national debt to be some of the biggest threats facing the American economy, but there were also growing concerns about Chinese mercantilism and the breakdown of the family. This is the background to accusations from some quarters that conference speakers were embracing statist solutions such as national-security tariffs and paid family leave.

The truth is that the vast majority of conservatives in the room — and throughout the country — uphold the importance of American enterprise and innovation, but maintain the need for a strong, yet constitutionally limited, role for the government (state or federal) to address generational challenges like China, Big Tech, Woke Capitalism, and dwindling family formation. There are some differences in emphasis. Younger conservatives want more engagement on issues like environmental conservation and express more concern about the impact of mass immigration on working-class wages than their elders, yet they still uphold the virtues of subsidiary, voluntary associations, and independence from heavy-handed government programs.

To its critics, the conservative movement appears to be coming apart at its seams. While today’s debates are particularly intense, they are not altogether new, nor do they foretell a dark future where conservatives embrace social engineering, state-capitalism, and Big Government. Wisely, conservatives are looking back to the prudential statesmanship of Jefferson, Hamilton, Taft, and Reagan to craft an economic agenda that strengthens the American nation, families, industry, and entrepreneurs.

Speakers at ISI’s American Economic Forum represented a broad spectrum of views — and there were some heated debates — yet this kind of spirited discussion on important topics is exactly what’s needed for a conservative movement on the cusp of landslide electoral victories in 2022 and 2024. It’s also the kind of urgent and honest debate that made National Review, ISI, and the Heritage Foundation famous at the dawn of the conservative movement. In order for conservatives today to build a new majority, they need an agenda for a free and humane economy. Both our conference and the flurry of discussion that it provoked mark one small but necessary step on the road to American renewal.

Kevin Roberts is the president of the Heritage Foundation. John A. Burtka IV is the president and CEO of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.