Considering the abysmal state of the economy and the unpopularity of President Biden, with few exceptions, the Republicans took a serious beating in the recent U.S. midterm election.
Whatever the Republican strategy is and has been, that strategy isn’t working. It isn’t working because former President Donald Trump is polarizing and an increasingly unpopular person. His influence is leading the party toward more electoral defeats. Think about it. The guy barely won in 2016 against a singularly unpopular candidate. Since then, his electoral successes have been nil. He has even actively engineered some GOP defeats, such as the Georgia senate runoff in 2020, with his temper tantrums. And, of course, his favored candidates for the 2022 midterms were terrible. With rare exceptions, they lost their races. Since when are Republicans voters so enamored with losers?
All that said, the GOP has a problem that runs deeper than Trump (though it may have gotten much worse under Trump). It’s this: Republicans today stand for nothing, and on the rare occasions that they do stand for something, that something is woeful. From protectionism to vile anti-immigration rhetoric, from government-engineered paid leave to the extended child tax credit, and from threatening to punish big tech and to impose industrial policy, with a contingent shouting “free-markets are actually bad”, the party is in disarray intellectually – a fact that plausibly contributes to its current disarray politically.
Some serious intellectuals on the right recognize this problem. Here is National Review’s Philip Klein on this.
To be sure, it perhaps started with Trump, who was never committed to free markets, quite the opposite in fact with very light exceptions (he more credit that he truly deserves for his economic policies, but that’s a topic for another day). His election and policy positions effectively freed Republicans and many conservatives to openly embrace the statist policies that they always wanted to adopt because, you know, it’s difficult to fight for sound budgeting, to resist special-interest groups, and to stand up consistently for small government.
However, unless Republicans wake up and realize that this crusade against “market fundamentalism” isn’t working for them—if only because it’s a sloppy, lazy and economically ignorant agenda—they will continue to be ridiculed and lose elections long after Trump has gone bye-bye.
Now, I don’t have a stake in either party. My loyalty has always been to classical liberal principle such as constitutionally limited government and free, entrepreneurial markets. Until a few years ago, some of the economic policy changes I favor were more likely to come from Republicans. I don’t know what I believe anymore as both sides are cheering for more government and more command and control of the economy. But for the record, I will put out there that if the Democrats were ever to decide that they once again want to be the party of opportunity (and some are) and of economic freedom while Republicans continue to somersault leftwards, I will work with them and cheer them along as they do push for more supply-side freedom, and hence economic growth and opportunity for all.
One last thing: obviously I wish that all parties would discover the wonders of a market economy. Here’s a beautiful fact: the same classical-liberal policies that would unleash market-generated prosperity will also promote many of the other worthwhile goals that Americans have, such as crime reduction, and stronger families, civil society, and much more.
But part of the classical-liberal package is also a rejection of hostility to immigration. There are many reasons why we should welcome immigrants to this country, no matter their skills and education levels. Bryan Caplan and many others have made the economic case better than I could.
There are many moral and economic arguments worth having about how much immigration we need and how to go about reforming the system. But recently, arguments coming from the right haven’t been about immigration but about immigrants themselves. Immigrants, especially lower skilled immigrants, are often talked about, as a class, in obnoxious and demeaning ways revealing a fundamental ignorant way about what it means to uproot oneself from a country and move to another.
Immigrating to this country back in 1999 was the hardest thing I ever did. I didn’t do it lightly. It is never an easy decision to leave one’s family, friends, native country, and culture in order to start fresh in a new country. I was lucky and my life wouldn’t have been at risk had I stayed in France. But I am sure that those who leave to escape dictatorships or poverty leave a piece of their heart behind all the same.
It was hard to leave, but the reality is that as hard as I thought it would be, it was much harder. I had friends, but I was so alone. I was relatively poor compared to what I left behind. I missed my family even more than I thought I would. I even missed French culture, even though when I left, I thought I had for it an incurable dislike. Again, I was one of the lucky ones. I had a job and a place to live when I arrived. Also, as big as are the cultural differences between France and America, that gap is smaller than for some immigrants who come to the U.S. from radically different cultural and religious backgrounds.
Enduring this hardship alone and having the courage and gumption to uproot oneself, I believe, deserves respect rather than the demeaning and baseless charges that so many Americans have, over the past seven years, flung at immigrants. We immigrants aren’t angels, and some truly awful. But so are native borns. However, what sets us apart and should please Americans is that we’ve come here and decided to leave our homeland because we see something remarkable about the United States – ironically, something remarkable that is no longer seen by so many native-born Americans. All of us – native born and immigrants – will next week celebrating Thanksgiving with a turkey (which for me is a special commitment since I don’t really didn’t like turkey!).
Immigrants don’t ask or deserve any special treatments; a chance at their American dream is enough. Many of them, I am sure would still come here even if they believed they would never receive welfare benefits (whether that a good idea is a topic for another day too). These are debates worth having but I urge Republicans and conservatives, especially as they consider dumping Trump once and for all, to reconsider their attack on immigrants and engage in the serious conversation of immigration reform.
Veronique de Rugy is a Senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center and syndicated columnist at Creators.
READER COMMENTS
Ken DeRosa
Nov 18 2022 at 10:04am
No one. Classical liberals and libertarians will go extinct because they have no defenses to combat the predations of the left. In fact classical liberals and libertarians have a political viewpoint that creates more leftists. Their desire to loosen the rules creates or invites in more degeneracy and more degeneracy creates more socialists/leftists. It’s a huge blind spot that ensures their ultimate subjugation by the left.
MarkW
Nov 19 2022 at 5:56am
No they won’t go extinct. The continued existence of classical liberals (and classical liberal ideas) doesn’t depend on having a political party/tribe to champion them. Nor can there be any permanent victories for protectionism and xenophobia since both will lead to stagnation (both in population and in the economy) that will eventually prove intolerable to the majority.
Roger McKinney
Nov 18 2022 at 10:06am
Excellent points about Trump. However, his Supreme Court appointments have revolutionized its judicial philosophy in favor of classical liberalism. As you know, FDR changed the court to one that promoted the nonsense of a “living” Constitution. In other words, judges could make up law and ignore the Constitution. Trump’s appointments gave originalists, those who think the written document is the law, a majority for the first time in almost a century. That is great for classical liberals!
As for immigration, I know you’ve heard it before, but Republicans oppose illegal immigration, not all immigration. They are happy to welcome immigrants who take the time to go through legal channels as you did. I would like to see the legal channels widened considerably in order to let more people in. I have a Chinese friend who had family in Hong Kong. One won the lottery to come to the US while the rest of her family had to go to the UK. Very sad.
Scott Sumner
Nov 18 2022 at 12:28pm
“Republicans oppose illegal immigration, not all immigration.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “Republicans”. The Trump administration tried to stop both legal and illegal immigration, both low skilled and high skilled.
Mactoul
Nov 18 2022 at 8:15pm
Trump tried to stop legal immigration?
When, how?
From the standpoint of open borders, all administrations, past or present are fascist. I don’t know how Trump could be singled out.
Jerrod Anderson
Nov 18 2022 at 9:39pm
One of his first actions in office was to restrict immigration from several countries. If I recall correctly even people with green cards were having difficulty getting back into the country. Some students couldn’t go back home because they might not have been able to get back into the US with their student visas.
Additionally, H1b visa denials drastically increased under Trump and restrictive regulations were issued around this program in 2020.
Jon Murphy
Nov 18 2022 at 11:30pm
The Trump Administration dramatically reduced visas and allowances
Scott Sumner
Nov 19 2022 at 12:34pm
“Trump tried to stop legal immigration?
When, how?”
The fact that readers aren’t even aware of Trump’s most important policy initiative speaks volumes about our media. What media outlets do you rely on?
Roger McKinney
Nov 19 2022 at 11:43am
Most Republicans
Joshua Zissman
Nov 18 2022 at 12:17pm
I have worked with and mentored immigrants from different countries, many from Asia. I have more respect for someone deciding to come to a foreign land, with little or no ability to speak the language, then I do for native born whiners worried about being “competed” out of their job. The amount of courage and fortitude needed to make this difficult journey (whether legal or “illegal”) is far and above what most native born Americans are willing to endure.
JoeF
Nov 19 2022 at 8:00am
It takes a lot of courage and fortitude to have a baby that you created rather than abort it. It takes a lot of courage and fortitude to hold up a convenience store too. Whom should we respect? I guess something compels people to do different things under similar circumstances, but what? Innate courage, innate fortitude? Culture? Intelligence? Fear?
nobody.really
Nov 18 2022 at 12:50pm
John Emerich Edward Dalberg, Lord Acton, The History of Freedom in Antiquity (1877).
Neither the Democratic nor Republican parties have had consistent philosophies. Famously, the Republican Party was founded by idealistic abolitionists and initially championed the interests of freed slaves, while the Democratic Party championed the interests of the former slavemasters. Times change.
The “Reagan Coalition” was built around “fusionism”—the uniting of libertarians, religious fundamentalists, and foreign policy hawks. It was always a marriage of convenience, but like many such marriages, it could endure so long as everyone’s expectations were met and no faction felt exploited or abandoned by the rest. But as Thomas Piketty observed, those were untenable conditions when the economy became less stable and the resulting burdens were borne unevenly—and conspicuously so. In that context, competitive forces would naturally lead some politician to jettison the libertarians and pursue the ethnonationalist path to power. While this dynamic has swept the globe, I had dreamed that “American Exceptionalism” would shield the US from this fate; I’ve had a rude awakening.
And today, sure, I could flatter myself by arguing that the path to electoral success is for all politicians to embrace MY preferences—but libertarians would be among the first to reason that insiders are more likely to understand their trades better than outsiders do. (Trump is no exception. Trump’s interest lies in promoting Trump, not the Republican Party, and he has played a weak hand astonishingly well.) Libertarians joined the Reagan Coalition precisely because the American palate gages when offered libertarianism straight; it needs to have its libertarianism mixed with some sweetener.
I’d argue that the Republican Party has an interest is separating itself from Trump and other ethnonationalists; others on this webpage deny that groups have interests, insisting that only individuals have interests. Either way, we’d agree that few individual Republican politicians find it in their interest to oppose Trump. Every mouse has an interest in seeing that a bell is put around the cat’s neck, but for each individual mouse, the risks of belling the cat exceed the benefits. So here we are–with a nice illustration of Republican political dynamics and of how the pursuit of self-interest fails to optimize society’s interests (at least, a nice illustration for those who acknowledge that society has interests).
Anyway, welcome to America, land of the free. Enjoy your Thanksgiving.
Wait—did you say you don’t like TURKEY? You better be talking about Erdoğan’s enthonationalism—or else, get out!
Maniel
Nov 18 2022 at 2:39pm
Dr. de Rugy,
Vachement bien écrit. I admire your command of English. I do have a couple of observations.
You say, “Now, I don’t have a stake in either party. My loyalty has always been to classical liberal principle such as constitutionally limited government and free, entrepreneurial markets.” I happen to share your loyalties, but I have observed that loyalty to a political party is largely tribal. I claim that tendency can be observed in very young voters who tend to vote as their parents did. Moreover, like it or not, we humans are tribal by nature. We have inherited, over the millennia, feelings of fear and distrust of people from other tribes.
If we are fortunate enough to be part of a culture within which we learn the concept of trust, we are less likely to carry such fear. Even then, it is helpful to be introduced early in life to people who look different, speak other languages, hold different beliefs, etc. If I do trust you (mème si vous parlez français), you and I are more likely to be able to conduct a business transaction without fear.
I believe that, unless we learn to trust, we will be unable to appreciate such concepts as free markets. We will be more likely to embrace such self-defeating concepts as tariffs, statism, protectionism, etc. Moreover, we will be unable to appreciate how we hurt each other by forming artificial tribes such as trade unions (et pire, comme les gilets jaunes).
Tribalism obviously applies to immigration. To me, the excuse that we’re for “legal” immigration rings hollow. It seems to me that many so-called American Citizens are just fine with 17th, 18th, and 19th century immigration to North America which effectively obliterated countless indigenous cultures/tribes.
Henry
Nov 18 2022 at 2:50pm
Could you explain your use of the word “abysmal” in the first sentence? Our economy has real problems, and no one would question that, but the term you used is hyperbole. Our GDP rose 2.6% in the last quarter, the unemployment rate is 3.7%, and the inflation rate is 7.7%. Not a good outcome, but things have been much worse in the past. I prefer a more dispassionate analysis.
Monte
Nov 18 2022 at 5:28pm
Thank you for this thought-provoking message of hope.
I suspect the dock will rot before that ship comes in. As you point out, even some Republicans are starting to “somersault” left. More discouraging still is the fact that our younger generations are leaning more towards democratic socialism.
My hope is that we reverse course before passing the point of no return.
Ted Durant
Nov 18 2022 at 9:05pm
I have begun thinking about whether citizenship should be an automatic privilege for anyone born here and whether it should be irrevocable. Or, put another way, what if citizenship (as opposed to residence) was available to anyone willing willing to be a positive contributor to society and to pledge their allegiance and pay taxes? And, what if citizenship was revocable for those that abuse that privilege and their fellow citizens? What incentives can we create to make citizenship desirable and expensive to lose?
Jon Murphy
Nov 19 2022 at 12:07am
Having revokable citizenship is a horrible idea. The ways it would be abused are innumerable. I can easily see people with politically unpopular views getting their citizenship revoked.
Monte
Nov 19 2022 at 1:15am
Why not commodify (allow people to buy, sell and trade) citizenships? This may be an idea whose time has come.
Brandon Berg
Nov 19 2022 at 4:48am
I actually think that the Republicans did all right in the election, considering that Biden spent $400 billion of taxpayer money on the campaign.
MarkW
Nov 19 2022 at 7:56am
But Biden turn out to have been thrifty when buying votes. The big problem with legal challenges to the student loan forgiveness program was establishing standing. But the Republican House clearly will have standing to challenge Biden giving away hundreds of billions without congressional authorization. So Biden’s outrageous executive largess with the public purse may not end up costing anything.
vince
Nov 19 2022 at 1:14pm
Winning the House and possibly holding their position in the Senate is a serous beating?
Blame Trump without mentioning abortion? Hmmmm …
vince
Nov 19 2022 at 1:23pm
At least he tried. Here are some excerpts from Trump in 2019 on immigration reform:
our plan will transform America’s immigration system into the pride of our nation and the envy of the modern world. Our proposal builds upon our nation’s rich history of immigration, while strengthening the bonds of citizenship that bind us together as a national family.
Throughout our history, we have proudly welcomed newcomers to our shores.
Our proposal is pro-American, pro-immigrant, and pro-worker.
vince
Nov 19 2022 at 1:40pm
“Republicans today stand for nothing … with a contingent shouting “free-markets are actually bad””
What’s the alternative–the party of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and their followers?
If you want to find Libertarians in Congress, you have to look (but look hard) at Republicans.
We naturally should have at least four parties in this country. The shame is we get stuck with the two we have.
Nicolas Martin
Nov 21 2022 at 10:50am
When have Republicans implemented free market rhetoric? Murray Rothbard did a splendid job of debunking the Reagan myths. The last major federal deregulations — of trucking, airlines, and oil — were done by Democrats. At the state level Republicans are even worse. They gleefully expand the tyranny of occupational licensing, for instance; and do little to reverse destructive land use regulations. The most egregious violation of property rights, drug prohibition, has long been a pet project of the the GOP. Ostensibly free market economists are muted by their well-paying jobs in academics and with think tanks. Economic freedom is an historically radical development, and needs rhetoric and publications to match.
Comments are closed.