The New Right and the Revival of Economic Activism: Rethinking Trade and Manufacturing

Over the past several decades, conservative economic thought in the United States has often championed free markets, minimal government intervention, and an unwavering faith that deregulated capitalism would generate prosperity. Yet, as recent years have revealed, the old orthodoxies—once seen as unshakeable—are being reexamined by a rising “New Right” that challenges the idea that markets alone can secure America’s economic future.

This New Right, distinguished by its growing skepticism toward unregulated markets, marks a notable departure from the previous conservative faith in free trade and market outcomes. Its advocates argue that for too long, conservatives have overtrusted market mechanisms and overlooked the real-world costs of unfettered globalization—especially the erosion of American manufacturing, the hollowing out of key industries, and overdependence on countries like China.

The Limits of Market Faith

For roughly 30 to 40 years, many conservatives accepted the doctrine that if government got out of the way, markets would sort themselves out and deliver prosperity for all. This faith rested on the classical economic principle that individuals and companies pursuing profit would naturally lead to efficient and beneficial outcomes for society. While markets do produce innovation and wealth, the New Right contends that they do not guarantee these outcomes will align with national interests or protect working-class families.

Take, for example, the decline of American manufacturing and the outsourcing of jobs overseas. The old economic orthodoxy largely shrugged off these consequences as “creative destruction” or collateral damage in pursuit of cheaper goods. But the New Right now argues that such outcomes are unacceptable if they undermine family-sustaining jobs or weaken national security. The question shifts from “Is this market outcome efficient?” to “Is this outcome desirable for the country’s long-term health?”

Reassessing Trade and China’s Role

Central to this reorientation is a more aggressive stance on trade policy, particularly regarding China. Whereas the previous conservative consensus treated trade as a largely benign, even beneficial, force—allowing for low-cost imports and open supply chains—the New Right sees China as a strategic economic adversary that has used unfair practices to hollow out American industry. This includes concerns over intellectual property theft, forced technology transfers, and the strategic importance of maintaining domestic manufacturing for critical goods.

This shift was exemplified in policy debates during the Trump administration, which imposed tariffs and took a more confrontational stance toward China’s trade practices. While tariffs were criticized for their unpredictability and potential economic side effects, they signaled a willingness to intervene in markets to protect American interests—a stark contrast to the previous era’s laissez-faire approach.

The Reagan Era: A Historical Precedent

Interestingly, this new activism is not without historical precedent. President Ronald Reagan, often considered a free-market icon, implemented protectionist trade policies in the 1980s, particularly with Japan. Reagan negotiated quotas on Japanese auto imports to protect the domestic auto industry, recognizing that free trade is valuable only if it is fair and balanced.

Reagan’s trade war with Japan demonstrated an early recognition that governments must sometimes intervene to safeguard national economic interests. It also reflected a pragmatic approach to economic policy—one that balanced free-market principles with strategic protections. Today’s New Right draws lessons from this approach, seeking to revive a similarly pragmatic trade policy that fosters resilience in American industry.

The Complexity of Industrial Policy

Beyond tariffs, the New Right debates how best to revive American manufacturing. One approach is targeted industrial policy, exemplified by bipartisan initiatives like the CHIPS Act, which incentivizes domestic semiconductor manufacturing through government funding and support. Such policies aim to “pick winners” by supporting strategic sectors critical to national security and economic vitality.

However, picking winners is controversial among conservatives who worry about government overreach and cronyism. There is concern that industrial policy can lead to inefficiency, favoritism, and a politicization of economic decisions. Some conservatives prefer broader tools like tariffs that apply widely rather than narrow subsidies or incentives that pick specific industries or companies.

Most analysts agree the solution lies in a balanced approach—using broad-based trade measures to shift overall economic incentives, combined with targeted support where national interests demand it. This dual strategy could help restore key industries without stifling innovation or competition.

Tariffs: A Blunt But Necessary Tool

Tariffs, while politically contentious, have advantages as a blunt instrument. They set a baseline economic cost that companies must reckon with when deciding where to invest or manufacture. If imported goods become more expensive due to tariffs, corporations have an incentive to consider domestic production.

Critics argue that tariffs can be unpredictable, given their status as executive actions vulnerable to reversal by subsequent administrations. Businesses often prefer legislative certainty to plan long-term investments. This has sparked calls for bipartisan legislative frameworks to stabilize trade policies and provide clearer signals to industry.

The Trump administration’s tariffs sparked debate on whether such tools are sustainable or effective in the long run. Yet, by maintaining many of these policies, the Biden administration has signaled a bipartisan consensus that rethinking trade and industrial strategy is necessary—albeit with calls for more predictable and transparent implementation.

Beyond China: The Global Ripple Effects

While much attention focuses on China, America’s trade relationships with other countries also come under scrutiny. Policies that appear adversarial or punitive toward allies such as Canada raise questions about consistency and strategic coherence. Critics fear that friction with traditional partners could undermine broader economic and geopolitical goals.

The conversation about tariffs and trade thus sits within a larger geopolitical context—one in which economic policy is intertwined with national security, supply chain resilience, and global influence.

A New Economic Nationalism?

At its core, the New Right’s economic thinking reflects a form of economic nationalism—prioritizing domestic economic strength, secure supply chains, and family-sustaining jobs over abstract market efficiency or low prices at any cost. It rejects the notion that free trade is always beneficial, emphasizing instead the role of government in setting guardrails and steering markets toward outcomes aligned with national interest.

This shift reflects broader political and social trends. Many voters and policymakers have grown skeptical of globalization’s promises, especially as they see jobs disappear and communities struggle. The New Right taps into these concerns, offering a vision of conservatism that is more pragmatic, interventionist, and attentive to economic realities on the ground.

Conclusion

The New Right’s approach marks a significant departure from decades of free-market orthodoxy, reintroducing the idea that government has a crucial role in shaping economic outcomes. By embracing a more activist economic policy—combining tariffs, industrial policy, and strategic trade initiatives—this movement aims to rebuild American industrial strength and secure the nation’s economic future.

This evolving conservatism balances respect for market dynamics with a recognition of their limits, particularly in an era defined by strategic competition and economic uncertainty. Whether this approach will succeed in delivering the resilience and prosperity it promises remains to be seen. But its emergence signals a major realignment in American economic thought—one that could redefine the country’s economic policy for years to come.