Trump’s War Against Corrupt Elite Represents Much-Needed Return To American Exceptionalism

Markets must always serve the interests of the nation and its people — not the other way around

Last week, President Trump announced a baseline 10% tariff on all U.S. imports while imposing steeper reciprocal levies on goods from other nations, including traditional geopolitical allies in Europe and Japan.

However, tariffs are just one of many contentious topics related to Trump’s efforts to move the United States away from an economically liberal “free trade” mindset and toward a more economically nationalist platform.

While liberal media outlets are, of course, reacting negatively to Trump’s economic protectionism, there is also significant pushback and legal challenges on Trump’s economic nationalism from “conservatives” (i.e., libertarians) on the political right.

Conservative criticism was also present during the first Trump administration, when “Never Trump” conservatives defended “free trade” agreements like NAFTA and the need to offshore U.S. manufacturing to China. For example, George Will, writing for the National Review, stated that despite Trump’s attacks on free trade, the economic process of “creative destruction,” not globalization, was primarily responsible for American jobs lost.

Unfortunately, nowhere in this economic system of “creative destruction” is there a concern from mainstream conservatism for the flourishing of the American people, their families, and the communities that get left behind after their livelihoods are “creatively” destroyed.

Economist Joseph Schumpeter introduced the idea of creative destruction in 1942 in his book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. This concept describes the ongoing cycle of innovation and technological progress within a capitalist economy that can eliminate industries, companies, products, and job opportunities, while creating new ones.

A classic example of this phenomenon is the automobile’s replacement of the horse and buggy. In more modern times, you can see this with brick-and-mortar video stores like Blockbuster going out of business with the advent of streaming services like Netflix. In short, out with the old, and in with the new.

To the adherents of economic liberalism, creative destruction is always a net positive and a key factor in driving economic growth and progress (as they define it). In theory, creative destruction enables the distribution of resources from less productive or outdated sectors (horses and VHS tapes) to more efficient and innovative ones (cars and video on demand).

Supporters of economic liberalism also refer to Adam Smith’s concept of the “invisible hand,” which holds that if individuals (both consumers and employers) are allowed to act freely and follow their own economic interests, the market will naturally allocate resources efficiently and benefit society as a whole.

However, this isn’t always true when you move from economic theory into the real world inhabited by humans.

CLICK HERE to read the rest of my debut op-ed in the Daily Caller!