Donald Trump has clearly taken this path and the success of his campaign so far confirms our initial analysis and our exhortation to the party. At the time I recall defending this position against charges that modifying our trade deals to reflect a more mercantilist approach was not contrary to conservatism because it was purely conservative to use government to undo the harm caused by big government.
Some style the route Donald Trump has taken to be a populist revolt against the Republican establishment or, more accurately, against a uni-party of establishment Republicans and Democrats. Evidently, Rush Limbaugh is styling Donald Trump's campaign as "Americanism."
Labels are extraordinarily powerful things. Once you can affix your own label to an issue you have effectively won the debate. Who can argue against "Americanism?" It is important for conservatives who have so often been the victims of the language police and victims of labeling done to us by leftists that we do not simply get swept away with language.
Because Donald Trump inveighs against the "stupidity" of our government does not mean that he is contemplating conservative solutions. I don't think Obama's negotiators are stupid, for example, in their negotiations with Iran, I think they quite knowingly sold the country out in order to get any deal. The problem with the Obama administration is not stupidity but ideology. What sort of ideology does Donald Trump offer us?
"Americanism" is a necessary but insufficient description of what we need from a president who, before Obama, was presumed to have the best interests of the country at heart. What does Americanism mean in the context of trade negotiations? How do we know that a mercantilist approach will not pitch the world into a disastrous trade war? How do we know that Donald Trump who has been described as a bull who carries around his own china shop will have the finesse to improve our trade balance but not precipitate a trade war? Is it enough that he he loves America?
Is it enough that Donald Trump hates the Republican establishment? Yes we know that it was the Republican establishment in league with Clinton and now in league with Obama enabled the latter to proceed with TPP, that has favored big business in our trade deals and sold out the middle class and jobs. But to hate that is not a solution. To say that they will negotiate smart is not a solution because the problem is that invariably in these trade deals, going back to the administration of George Washington when the colonies of the North East squabbled and nearly went to war with the colonies of the South about tariffs, some interest will be favored and some will be injured.
What is the "American" position on supporting sugarcane interest in Florida, international banks for Boeing, IT transfers of work to India, importation of cheap televisions from China and telephones from Korea? Who gets hurt and who gets helped? Are we to help manufacturers, then are we not hurting consumers? It is not so easy that we can simply say our negotiators are stupid and Donald Trump will find the smartest negotiators. That is so simplistic that the argument is pathetic. Populism by definition is popular, but is it prudent?
So far, we have permitted our understandable frustration with the ruling elite to lead us to a populist reaction and that can be very good. But it will not be good if we throw away our conservative principles in a self righteous urge for change or if we cease to use our critical faculties to weigh the virtues, or the lack of them, of our candidates.
"Make America great again" what a great sentiment, what a great slogan, a great label, what does it mean?
