President Donald Trump has stirred the hornet’s nest with his preference for tariffs. The President has even described the word “tariff” as one of the most beautiful words in the English language. Perhaps more than any other policy, including immigration, President Trump’s protectionism is the most controversial. For many within the conservative movement, tariffs are a betrayal of free-market economics and a rejection of the “true spirit” of Reagan conservatism. Further, protectionism is often assumed to be a policy favored by progressives and socialists.
It is argued that those who support President Trump and protectionism are not just embracing socialism, but have lost their “economic compass”. Free-market philosophy holds that “trade always benefits both sides,” while protectionism represents government interference in the marketplace—picking winners and losers and imposing an unjust tax on consumers.
The consumer, in this view, should be the main focus, and it does not matter where goods are produced. “Trade isn’t about countries — it’s about people. When Americans buy clothes from Bangladesh or semiconductors from Taiwan, both sides benefit. Blocking trade with tariffs is like trying to grow prosperity by taxing yourself,” argues Vance Ginn, an economist and visiting scholar at Iowans for Tax Relief Foundation.
This philosophy can be summed up as: what is good for the consumer is good for the nation. From this perspective, “trade is really about obtaining the cheapest products for our consumers. For the people, if the result is the loss of manufacturing and related jobs, that is a fair exchange,” wrote former Ambassador Robert Lighthizer, who served as United States Trade Representative in the first Trump administration. In other words, “cheap televisions trump American factories,” Lighthizer contends.
“But we are not simply consumers. We are Americans. We are fellow citizens. We are neighbors. We have duties to one another,” argues Patrick J. Buchanan.
Free-trade advocates also argue that nations should follow comparative advantage—meaning a nation should specialize in producing what it does best and then engage in trade. From this perspective, it does not matter that the United States depends on other nations for semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and other necessities. Manufactured products or agricultural commodities can be produced elsewhere more efficiently and at a cheaper price. For example, it should not matter that the United States relies on Taiwan for semiconductors, even though that dependence could potentially draw us into a military conflict with China.
Another common defense of free trade is that it causes only temporary “creative destruction” or disruption. Workers may lose jobs to trade agreements, but in time the market will adjust and create new opportunities.
During the era of globalization and free trade, policymakers in both parties argued that American workers would benefit and that the world would become more democratic. Corporations thrived under these so-called free-trade agreements, but communities and the middle class across the nation suffered.
“We lost 5 million manufacturing jobs and over 60,000 factories as cheap goods flooded our market from countries like China,” noted Ambassador Jamieson Greer, who currently serves as President Trump’s United States Trade Representative. As Greer explains, the “creative destruction” did not reset the economy—it just left wreckage:
“But we didn’t shift to making more valuable goods, like we were supposed to according to the economists. The communities that are the lifeblood of our conservative society did not switch from making steel to making semiconductors. In far too many cases, they went from being vibrant manufacturing ecosystems and hubs of production to concentrations of welfare, poverty, and—in many cases—widespread despair.”
“‘Creative destruction’ is the antiseptic term free traders use to describe what they have done and are doing to the America we grew up in,” wrote Buchanan. “When a factory shuts down and a town begins to die, workers are laid off. The local tax base shrinks, education and social services are cut, and folks go on unemployment and food stamps. We all pay for that. Wives go to work, kids come home from school to empty houses, families break up, and social disintegration follows.”
The question remains: should conservatives continue to support free markets? The answer is yes—and doing so is not a contradiction. Supporting tariffs or protectionist policies does not mean having to also reject trade or abandon limited government principles. Tariffs, when properly understood, do not oppose trade; rather, their goal is to ensure that trade agreements serve the interests of the nation first—protecting American manufacturers, workers, and farmers. History shows this balance is possible. President Calvin Coolidge, for example, cut taxes, reduced spending, and paid down the national debt, all while supporting tariffs. The real danger lies not in free markets themselves but in turning free-market theory into an ideology or an end in itself, detached from the national interest.
Limited government policies remain central to conservatism, but supporting trade policies that reduce sovereignty and cause “creative destruction” runs counter to conservative principles. For conservatives, the economy is more than just consumer choice—it is also about family, community, and nation.
Conservatives often emphasize the importance of culture, and economics is part of that culture. “As conservatives, it has been drilled into us to lament that politics is downstream from culture. But consider: culture itself is downstream from economics. If we want a conservative culture, we need to create a conservative economic system,” argues Greer.
It should be a priority for conservatives to preserve strong families and communities, and to support policies that encourage wages sufficient to sustain a strong middle class. This is why a production economy is more important than one centered solely on consumption.
“A Production Economy is oriented around production rather than consumption as an end in itself. Such an economy emphasizes a large middle class that makes and grows rather than a small elite that extracts, reallocates, and squanders,” states Greer.
Finally, conservatives must also be concerned about independence and sovereignty. President George Washington and Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton both warned about the dangers of U.S. dependence on foreign nations. Hamilton argued that it was essential to “render the United States independent on foreign nation[s] for… essential supplies.” Greer even noted that Thomas Jefferson—often cited by free traders and libertarians—“warned against industrial dependence on foreign powers in the lead up to what became the War of 1812.”
Many free-trade agreements create international bureaucracies that strip sovereignty from the Constitution and the American people. As Ambassador Greer explains:
“For years, the Appellate Body at the World Trade Organization nullified every American attempt to protect its workers and guard against the rise of China. Over multiple decades, foreign interests and their U.S. allies have undermined America’s efforts to ensure our goods are treated fairly.”
President Trump was also correct when he argued that, for decades, the United States was taken advantage of—even by allies—in trade deals. Other nations used tariffs, value-added taxes, currency manipulation, subsidies, and other tools to protect their markets.
“How can we have a conservative economy, conservative culture, or conservative politics if we don’t have a sovereign country that controls its own destiny?” asked Greer.
In 2001, members of both parties celebrated China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). They argued that granting China Most Favored Nation status and opening our markets would benefit our economy and democratize China.
The opposite happened. China did not democratize, but it did exploit our open market. The United States began running massive trade deficits with China, and it is estimated that Iowa alone has lost close to 34,000 jobs to China. Meanwhile, China built up its military and launched a global expansion, becoming our top national security threat.
China is not only a growing military power, but as retired Brig. General John Adams argues, they now hold the “U.S. defense industrial base in the palm of their hand.” For example, Adams notes that “more than 80,000 parts used in America’s weapons systems are manufactured with critical minerals subject to Chinese control.”
This leverage extends beyond defense into the broader American economy. In Iowa, China’s retaliation against Trump’s tariffs—refusing to purchase additional soybeans—directly impacted farmers and the state’s economy.
What would Hamilton and Washington think today of our dependence on foreign, and even hostile, nations for necessities? Whether it is critical minerals, pharmaceuticals, consumer goods, or high-tech products, the United States is dangerously dependent on China.
“Sovereignty also means resilience. A country which relies on its adversaries for all of its medicine, critical minerals, and semiconductors cannot be said to be fully independent,” argues Greer, echoing Hamilton and Washington.
Finally, it’s worth noting that free trade is a classical liberal and libertarian philosophy, but it is also one embraced by progressives. Often forgotten is that the Republican Party—with roots in the Federalists and Whigs—was historically the party of protectionism. From Abraham Lincoln through Herbert Hoover, Republicans supported tariffs. By contrast, Democrats and progressives such as William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt promoted free trade and “liberal internationalism.”
Even President Calvin Coolidge—a hero for many free-market conservatives and libertarians—defended protectionism. “My observation of protectionism is that it has been successful in practice, however unsound it may appear to be in theory. That must mean the theories have not taken account of all the facts,” he wrote.
Coolidge was not an ideologue; he believed in a conservative philosophy that prioritized the good of the nation above rigid economic theory. He is an example that conservatives can still support tariffs while believing in constitutional limited government.
When it comes to trade policy, the end goal should be putting America first. “Americans are producers first, consumers second. Good jobs, high wages, and strong families should be the objective of trade policy. Productive American businesses can make profits under rules that prioritize our workers, farmers, and communities,” wrote Lighthizer.
Print a PDF