At its core, conservatism is facing an identity test. Are conservative principles primarily about liberty, or about preserving a nation? Even principled conservatives can’t seem to agree. After you’ve read Liberty First: Why Freedom Conservatism Beats National Conservatism Every Time, be sure to check out why John Hendrickson believes National Conservatism Preserves What Freedom Alone Cannot.
Populism is not the problem. It’s a signal. People are fed up with a rigged-feeling economy, cultural chaos, and leaders who talk like managers instead of servants. That frustration is legitimate.
Where things go wrong is when today’s “populism” starts borrowing the left’s favorite habit: centralizing power in the executive branch and calling it strength. That isn’t renewal. It’s a replacement, swapping one set of elites for another and hoping the new boss behaves better.
Freedom conservatives and national conservatives both claim to be responding to real pain. But they start with different assumptions, and they end up in very different places.
National conservatives often assume the country needs a stronger hand: directed investment, protected industries, “strategic” planning, and economic punishment for enemies. You can see it in their own statement of principles, where the nation’s unity and independence become the guiding aim, and state power becomes the tool.
Freedom conservatives assume something simpler and older: power corrupts, and concentrated power corrupts fast. That’s why the freedom conservatism statement is anchored in liberty and constitutional limits. This view aligns closely with classical liberalism: individual freedom, limited government, free enterprise, and a strong, self-sufficient civil society.
Here’s the fork in the road: populism can mean empowering people, or empowering government. Too often today, it’s the second one.
Progressives have long preferred rule by executive action: agencies, emergency declarations, sweeping orders, and regulatory shortcuts. What’s different now is how many on the right are tempted to use the same tactics for “good” ends. That should set off alarms.
Taxes are supposed to come from the legislative branch. The Constitution is clear that Congress holds the power to levy duties and taxes. And yet, modern trade policy has turned tariffs into a presidential plaything through delegated authorities like Section 232, Section 301, and, more controversially, attempts to use emergency powers like IEEPA to justify broad tariffs—an approach by President Trump that was recently found unconstitutional by SCOTUS.
The result is a dangerous precedent: presidents acting as if they can tax by decree. That’s not conservative. That’s a shortcut around accountability.
This is where national-conservative economics becomes a gut-punch to the very people it claims to defend. Tariffs are marketed as a way to “make other countries pay.” But the economic reality is blunt: tariffs are taxes on imports, and those costs largely fall on American businesses and consumers.
A recent New York Fed analysis found that U.S. firms and consumers bore more than 90% of the burden from high tariffs imposed in 2025. That’s not a talking point. It’s how tax incidence works when you restrict supply and raise input costs.
Tariff populism also creates a political economy of permanent favors: exemptions, special pleading, carveouts, and retaliation. It rewards the best-connected firms, not the best-serving ones. It punishes exporters when other countries hit back. And it turns “economic nationalism” into a fancy label for government picking winners and losers.
Even worse, it trains conservatives to cheer for centralized power and government spending because they like who’s holding it today. That’s how you lose liberty in slow motion.
Freedom conservatism doesn’t deny community decline. It denies that the cure is coercion.
Prosperity isn’t built by steering capital with political threats. It’s built on the idea that free people can innovate, compete, and cooperate without government tilting the field. That’s why classical liberal warnings about planning and power still matter. When the state controls the economy, it doesn’t just control prices; it controls people.
Morally, freedom matters because voluntary action is more ethical than forced outcomes. Charity, family, faith, entrepreneurship, and local problem-solving all get weaker when government crowds them out and replaces responsibility with bureaucracy.
And liberty matters because it’s the precondition for everything else. A “strong executive” that can impose sweeping trade taxes today can impose sweeping speech rules tomorrow. The tool doesn’t stay neutral. It grows teeth.
National conservatism is often right about the diagnosis: alienation, fragility, and institutional rot. But it’s wrong about the prescription. Executive-heavy populism, tariffs, and industrial planning are not a return to ordered liberty. They’re a new version of top-down management.
Freedom conservatism is better because it trusts people more than politicians. It protects the constitutional separation of powers. It rejects hidden taxes like tariffs. And it keeps the moral center of conservatism where it belongs: liberty under law, limited government, and free enterprise that lets people prosper.
Print a PDF