Economic Nationalism

Stephanie Slade | 7.12.2024 11:25 AM

"I think it's been decided, as obviously as it possibly can be, that America First is the future direction of the Republican Party," former presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy tells me.

Given the close association of "America First" with tariffs, industrial policy, and calls to close the borders, even to legal immigration, this might not seem to augur promising things for libertarians. But Ramaswamy sees two distinct live possibilities for what the phrase should actually mean. "From where I sit," he says, "the most important debate for the country to have is the intra–Republican Party and even intra–America First debate between the national protectionist and national libertarian wings."

During an evening keynote at the fourth National Conservative Conference in Washington, D.C., this week, Ramaswamy laid out these alternatives in some detail—and gently made the case that attendees of the nationalist event should rethink their indulgence in protectionism.

Both nationalist wings reject the "historical neoliberal consensus" that he says prioritized economic growth above all else, including national security. But they do so "for different reasons and with very different implications" for trade and immigration policy.

"The national protectionist answer to this recognizes the failures and risks of the neoliberal view," he said Tuesday night. "But it commingles those concerns with a totally separate concern about protecting American manufacturers from the effects of price erosion from foreign competition, including but not limited to China….The national libertarian view is different. It is focused entirely on eliminating U.S. dependence on China in those critical sectors for U.S. security"—namely, military equipment and pharmaceuticals.

As a cynical libertarian, I naturally raise an eyebrow at the invocation of "national security," which seems capacious enough in the hands of most nationalists to justify quite literally any government action they happen to wish to take. But Ramaswamy was forthright about what his vision would mean:........

© Reason.com