The new, ‘new Right’

Do NatCons have the answer to a 21st-century American government?

Since the 1970s, America’s political right movement has been a coalition of libertarians and conservatives, both of whom felt that the federal government had gotten too big for its britches, if for different reasons. Recently, a new breed of conservatives has emerged: “National Conservatives,” or NatCons as they’re popularly known. And if they were to have a manifesto, it would be Dawn’s Early Light: Taking Back Washington to Save America by Kevin D. Roberts, president of The Heritage Foundation.

The “old conservatism,” Roberts calls it, didn’t just believe that government should be shrunk because it was encroaching on individual liberty, but also because government simply wasn’t competent enough to achieve many of the things it attempted. “Public choice” economists outlined a theory of government failure to set against that of market failure, which is often invoked to justify government action. Milton Friedman captured this attitude in his famous quip: “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.”

NatCons are more comfortable using the power of the state to achieve desired ends and are more confident in their ability to achieve them. In the book’s preface, Vice Pres. J.D. Vance writes: “The old conservative movement argued if you just got government out of the way, natural forces would resolve problems — we are no longer in this situation and must take a different approach.” “We” meaning the federal government:

…should encourage our kids to get married and have kids… teach them that marriage isn’t just a contract, but a sacred — and to the extent possible, lifelong — union.

Furthermore:

…we should also do something else: create the material circumstances such that having a family isn’t only for the privileged. That means better jobs at all levels of the income ladder. That means protecting American industries — even if it leads to higher consumer prices in the short term.

“How can we reconcile the need to wield political power to rebuild civic society with our skepticism of government intervention?” Roberts asks. “That’s what this book is about.”

Starting with high housing costs, Roberts launches a wide-ranging attack on regulations in areas such as education and health care, which have made family life more expensive. “A supplyside approach to family formation means a supply-side approach to everything families need, starting with affordable housing,” he argues. “That doesn’t mean imposing artificial rent controls or some other progressive policy that makes housing affordable for a select few. Housing should be affordable for all, simply because there is so much of it.” He concludes, “Permitting and regulatory reform is one of the most critical political issues the New Conservative Movement should fight for…” The old conservative movement would agree.

But Roberts goes further. “We should consider even more radical measures such as adopting a successful Hungarian policy that gave low-interest-rate loans to never-before-married young newlyweds, with the proviso that a large chunk will be forgiven for each child they have.” He proposes creating “a family flexible savings account. Each family would be able to deduct up to $10,000 a year per child from its income taxes to put into this account. Working families on welfare would be able to receive $10,000 a year in lieu of other welfare program eligibility. Married couples would be able to deduct substantially more so that we would be heavily incentivizing marriage, with a bonus for every third child or more.” This will be expensive. Hungary “spends up to 6 percent of its GDP on measures to encourage family formation and the raising of children.”

I am in deep sympathy with Vance and Roberts’ aims, but the old conservative skepticism of the means dies hard. Can a government heading toward a debt of 118 percent of GDP in 2035 afford this? Can a phenomenon, like family fragmentation, which research indicates is driven more by cultural than economic factors, be solved by spending trillions of dollars? Roberts acknowledges this but assures us that “we have our sharpest thinkers and wonks on the case.” Of course, sharp thinkers and wonks have been fighting the War on Poverty for 60 years, using similar tools, without notable success. While I share their aims, I am unconvinced of their methods.

You could go to Washington, D.C. today and find someone who is, in a meaningful sense, a “Reaganite” because Reagan embodied a set of ideals separate from him that lasted beyond him and defined conservatism for five decades. Pres. Donald Trump is reshaping the conservative movement in America. If Trumpism is to last beyond him, it will need a set of ideals beyond himself. Dawn’s Early Light gives an indication of what they might be and where the conservative movement is heading.