Economic freedom no longer has a place in any party

For years, populists on both the left and right have complained that Washington is in the thrall of libertarians, market fundamentalists, and perhaps neoliberals—even though it is rare for any influential political figure to identify himself in this way.

Recent events should put an end to these complaints: With the rise of Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) as the Republican Party’s presidential candidate, and vice president Kamala Harris, American politics have found themselves in the grips of a kind of neopopulism that is implicitly based on a rejection of this synthesis, and in particular on an abandonment of the worldview of free markets and limited government power.

This, in turn, has created a new class of political homeless: call them fusionists, classical liberals, libertarians—but those who prioritize economic freedom have essentially no place in either major party. This is a significant departure from fundamental American values—and a troubling departure from the worldview that has made America wealthy and powerful.

The transformation is most visible in the GOP, with Vance’s rise to the GOP presidential candidate. Vance, according to most accountsHe was elected at a moment of confidence, as an heir apparent who would broaden and strengthen Donald Trump’s core appeal, not as a counterweight to the former president’s electoral weaknesses.

Vance has spent the last half-decade transforming himself into one of the GOP’s most prominent neo-populists. He is a proponent of tariffs and trade restrictions, participant in the picket of car plant workersand a harsh critic of foreign work. He is even Lina Khan complimentedchairman of the Federal Trade Commission, who helped lead Biden administration’s new aggressive policy (albeit mostly unsuccessful) approach to antitrust enforcement. Vance, who has a habit of attacking libertarians, combines a rejection of individual liberty with a rejection of economic freedom — and is Trump’s newly anointed successor.

Modern Democrats have never been the party of limited government. But Harris appears poised to extend the big-government largesse of the Biden era, during which the party has pursued a variety of policies aimed at propping up unions and industrial policies to support favored industries and factory jobs through a number of big spending bills.

This spending legislation was followed by, and contributed to, the largest increase in inflation in four decades. Harris is now also campaigning on a policy banning the price gouging of food and groceries. Some Harris supporters have defended the policy as merely an exercise in antitrust enforcement, but critics have argued quite persuasively that the policy described comes down to a disturbing new system of federal price controls.

It also proposes a comprehensive subsidy program for first-time home buyers, combined with $40 billion in tax incentives for builders who want to build new homes.

If Biden was a big government advocate, Harris is greater liberal government.

What is striking about this particular political moment is that, on both the left and the right, a new elitist consensus seems to be forming that is skeptical of, and in some cases downright hostile to, the ideals and principles of the free market.

The neopopulist consensus is still fragile, but it generally favors preserving domestic jobs, limiting immigration, using taxes and spending incentives to advance industrial policy, and implementing tariffs and trade restrictions for reasons of national security, job creation, or international competitiveness. Significantly, the Biden administration has left most of Trump’s tariffs in place—and some cases I increased them.

Whatever other differences of opinion, leaders and emerging intellectuals from both parties seem to agree that it is most important to leave out classical liberals, libertarians, and advocates of economic freedom.

It’s true that the parties have never fully embraced those values, and have sometimes distanced themselves from them. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a self-described socialist, has long helped Democrats move left on economic issues. Former President George W. Bush imposed tariffs on imported steel, and his brand of “compassionate conservatism” was partly an attempt to tamp down the party’s libertarian tendencies.

Until recently, there was a place for those who valued individual freedom and markets. They were seen as valuable, or at least necessary, partners: As recently as 2012, none other than Democratic stalwart Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) introduced herself to the libertarianThat same year, former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R–Wisc.), who was perhaps best known for proposing entitlement reform, appeared on the GOP ticket. Trump’s first vice president, Mike Pence, was similarly a link to the GOP’s Reagan past.

There may be some holdouts in the party who still favor more orthodox, pro-market economics. House Speaker Mike Johnson’s speech at the Republican National Convention was paid for tribute to the “core principles of American conservatism,” which included “fiscal responsibility,” “free markets,” and “limited government.” But with Trump and Vance as the party’s reigning avatars, it seems likely that these values ​​will remain mere flaccid, inherited platitudes.

It’s a shame. Individual liberty and market freedom are the bedrock of American political and economic values: This synthesis is clear in the American founding and has long been deeply embedded in American life. In the 1830s, when America was still a young nation, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that “the audacity of enterprise is the principal cause of its rapid progress, strength, and greatness.” This audacity has made America rich on a scale that is taken for granted: today the vast majority of American states are richer than most European countriesNeopopulists take this wealth for granted and then propose policies — tariffs, labor regulations, new spending programs — that would make America poorer, slow its progress, and weaken its strength and greatness.

The rise of neopopulism and its rejection of the free market means that those who still advocate bold endeavors have no one to root for in this year’s presidential election.

What are the homeless to do politically? Beyond mourning — and perhaps drinking—they can champion narrowly focused, bipartisan deal-making. After all, that’s where some of the most effective — if not always the most heralded — advances in national policy, from prison reform to marijuana legalization, have come from. And they can lay the groundwork for a comeback by building (or changing) institutions that support their ideas, understanding that such an approach may take years to pay off.

They are usually able to see beyond the present moment, knowing that their perspective is rooted in the U.S. Constitution, with its system of checks and balances, judicial review, suspicion of both crowd enthusiasm and individual power, and guarantees of individual rights.

In the meantime, if nothing else, today’s politically homeless can find solace in the fact that at least no one can credibly complain that libertarians are now in power.

The article, “Economic Freedom No Longer Has a Place in Either Party,” first appeared on Reason.com.