The crucial fault line lies between the Old Right and New Right.

Understanding the Divide: National Conservatism vs. Freedom​ Conservatism

The‍ following is a transcript of remarks I delivered at ‍the American Political Science Association’s annual meeting‍ on Sept.⁤ 1.​ Panelists ⁤were asked to review ⁤the “National Conservatism” and “Freedom Conservatism” statements of principles.

Both the National Conservative Statement ⁢of ​Principles and the Freedom Conservative Statement of Principles offer valuable ⁣insights into the ideologies of the New Right and the Old Right. As someone who​ aligns⁢ with ⁣both camps, working for organizations associated with the Sharon Statement and ⁤its author Stan Evans, I find merit in both‍ statements. While ⁤I have ​some reservations, I ‍could easily support both.

That sentiment is certainly not shared by everyone on the right, new and old, but it reveals ‌an essential point: The primary ​disagreement between NatCons ⁢and FreeCons is their ‌priorities. This​ is⁢ not to minimize ‌that disagreement. It is significant. With certain old conservative institutions ‌run by stalwart defenders⁤ of the old agenda,​ it will be ‍unworkable. But ⁣with Republican voters and​ average Americans, it ⁢will not.

Let’s delve into the heart of the matter. The conflict between NatCons and FreeCons lies in their differing priorities. While this⁤ disagreement is substantial, ‌it is important to note​ that ​it ​is not insurmountable for Republican voters and the average American.

For instance, consider the tax ‌bill signed⁢ by Donald Trump ⁢in 2017. ‌This legislation,‍ which championed fiscal conservatism, became the ‍highlight​ of his presidency. While opinions within the national conservative camp have shifted,​ there is still broad support⁣ for a competitive corporate ⁣tax rate⁢ and tax relief⁣ for struggling American ​families.

While there are some dissenting voices within the national⁢ conservative camp, the general belief is in free markets with a focus on families and communities. ⁣Freedom Conservatives largely agree with this perspective, with the exception‌ of⁣ a few hardcore libertarians.

But⁣ this conflict over⁤ priorities amounts to a ⁤major gulf‌ in policy and tone: When the market fails to provide​ a living wage for single moms,⁢ is the priority ​to go after government ⁣barriers that may burden businesses with costs that cut into wages? Is it ‍to create new cash benefits for parents? Is ‍it to do both?

This clash of priorities leads to significant‍ differences ⁣in ⁤policy​ and ‍tone. When the market fails to support single mothers with a living wage, should the ⁤focus be on removing government⁤ barriers​ that burden businesses or on providing cash benefits for parents? Or should it be​ a combination of ⁣both?

Furthermore, what about the⁢ tone of conservative discourse? Should conservatives ​praise businesses whose CEOs prioritize environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives while increasing their own salaries? Should ‍they support ‌unions⁣ that fight for the⁢ rights of single mothers? Should they address the challenges faced ‌by these mothers in accessing quality education for ⁢their children ⁤without the imposition of politically charged policies?

These questions highlight the moral dilemma of⁤ prioritizing family, freedom, and prosperity in the face of economic and cultural challenges. Do ⁤free markets require⁣ more ​or less intervention? Do families and individuals need more or less freedom?

Here’s the NatCon statement on free markets, which some of us on the New Right might balk at in another context if it came from a FreeCon: “We believe that an ​economy based⁤ on private property and⁢ free enterprise is best suited to promoting the prosperity of the ⁢nation⁣ and accords with traditions of individual liberty that are​ central to the Anglo-American ‌political‌ tradition.‌ We reject the socialist principle, which supposes that the economic activity of the nation can ‍be ​conducted in ​accordance with a rational plan dictated by the state.”

Here’s‌ the⁢ FreeCon statement on the same: “Most individuals are happiest in loving families, and within stable and prosperous communities in which parents are free to engage in meaningful work, and ⁤to ⁣raise and educate their children according to their values. The free enterprise system is the foundation ​of prosperity. Americans can only prosper in an economy in ⁢which they can afford the basics of everyday life: food, shelter, health care, and energy. A corrosive ‍combination of government intervention‍ and ⁤private cronyism is making these basics unaffordable to many Americans.”

When it comes​ to foreign affairs,⁢ both NatCons⁤ and FreeCons generally support a ⁤strong stance. While there may be differences in specific policies, such as prioritizing China or addressing ​Mexican cartels, the ⁤overall inclination is towards a more militaristic approach.

Returning to​ the issue ‍of tax reform, many on the‍ New⁣ Right, including myself, believe that Republicans could have better utilized their political capital in addressing ⁣other pressing issues such as corruption in education, immigration reform, ⁣cronyism, and the power of Big Tech.

Despite these‌ disagreements, there are ‍numerous fundamental ⁢points of agreement between NatCons and FreeCons:

• Strong borders and the benefits‍ of a sensible immigration system
• Peace through strength
• Minimizing political censorship
• Eliminating crony capitalism
• Free markets
• Corruption and⁤ decline of the educational system
• Corruption and decline of⁤ media
• Corruption and growth of the administrative state
• Primacy of marriage and‍ family
• Federalism
• Independent judiciary
• The excesses of environmental ⁣extremism
• Nationalism
• Sanctity of unborn life
• Importance of⁤ the Second Amendment
• National‍ debt

However, there ⁤are some⁢ genuine divides among members of both⁤ camps, including:

• Free trade
• Domestic spying
• Public religion
• Civil ⁤rights law

These differences in rhetoric and priorities are significant, but it is crucial to recognize that ​they do not necessarily​ place the two camps‌ in opposing ballparks. The most important development⁣ in conservative thought is the realization ​of where their true allegiances lie.

The central threat is an ever-expanding federal ​bureaucracy ⁢that⁤ seeks, in cooperation with global institutions, ​to impose progressive⁤ ideological ends on individuals, families, schools, and employers by encroaching on personal and corporate freedoms.

While the‌ disagreements between NatCons and FreeCons should not be⁣ downplayed, they ⁢should be seen ⁤as an opportunity ‍to unite these factions against the common threat of ‍an⁣ overreaching federal bureaucracy. Rather⁣ than using these differences as‌ a wedge, the Sharon Statement can⁤ serve as a unifying force.

Ultimately, the question of priorities ⁣is the most significant factor in conservative political thought. It shapes decisions on tax codes, labor, trade, education, and rhetoric. As conservatives navigate these debates, it is crucial ​to⁤ remember their ⁢shared commitment to individual liberty and ‍the preservation of ​personal and corporate freedoms.