National Conservatism is one of the most interesting political movements on the scene today. Though the principles animating it—a concern for national traditions, peoples, and cultures—are time-tested, modern conservatives have downplayed them in pursuit of a rules-based international order. As that order breaks down, nationalism has re-emerged as a core area of conservative focus.

In July 2019, the Edmund Burke Foundation was founded to advance national conservatism around the world. Its NatCon events in the U.S., U.K., and E.U. have hosted a number of important thinkers and politicians over the years, including prime ministers and the current vice-presidential candidate for the Republican Party. Their speeches often address important ideas and outline key strategies for conservatives everywhere. Vivek Ramaswamy’s speech at this year’s NatCon is a case in point.

In his short talk, Ramaswamy puts his finger on a subtle but important rift emerging among American conservatives. Virtually all conservatives today see that an administrative elite has considerable power over American society—and that power is increasingly put toward progressive ends. However, conservatives disagree about what should be done to combat this encroachment of Americans’ rights.

One group, which is epitomized by J.D. Vance and Donald Trump, can be thought of as “National Protectionists.” They hope to take charge of the administrative state, staff it with conservatives, and use it to pursue conservative policy goals. In many cases, those goals might include policies that many progressives support, such as a higher minimum wage, expanded child tax credits, and tariffs on imports. To many National Protectionists, these policies are needed to bolster the living standards of American families.

Ramaswamy contrasts this perspective with another conservative approach, which he dubs “National Libertarianism.” Like National Protectionists, National Libertarians wish to combat the growing power of administrative agencies. They also want American families to thrive. However, in order to achieve those ends, National Libertarians don’t want to co-opt the state apparatus. Instead, they want to shut it down.

Ramaswamy himself belongs to this camp, calling for an end to agencies like the FBI, the Department of Education, the IRS, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This position is unlikely to win much support from progressives.

National Libertarians and National Protectionists also disagree on the matter of foreign trade. Both can see that outsourcing manufacturing to China—including the manufacturing of components and equipment essential for weapons and security infrastructure—has jeopardized the United States’ national security. However, they differ in the degree to which they want to bring those manufacturing operations back to America.

As the name would suggest, National Protectionists aren’t just skeptical about the benefits of trade with China. They’re also wary of running trade deficits with any country, including allies such as Germany, Japan, and the U.K. As a result, they seek to insource as much manufacturing as possible.

National Libertarians, on the other hand, are not necessarily concerned with reducing foreign trade as such—they just want to reduce dependence on the Chinese Communist Party and other potential threats. That means they’re open to trading with countries friendly to U.S. interests.

When it comes to practical affairs, the difference between the two camps is one of degree. There is no way to quickly bring manufacturing back to the U.S., so even National Protectionists are likely to support greater engagement with allies in order to reduce dependence on China. But as the years go on, the differences in principles that Ramaswamy lays out in his speech may result in substantially different policy programs.

That’s what makes National Conservatism such an interesting arrival on the political scene.

—

Image credit: Pexels