Vivek Ramaswamy On The Battle For The Soul Of The American Right – OpEd
By Patrick Carroll
Vivek Ramaswamy has emerged in recent years as one of the key figures in the Republican scene. His fresh ideas and youthful vigor have been a draw to many who would otherwise be understandably disillusioned with the state of American politics.
Though his run for the Republican presidential nomination was unsuccessful, his influence in the party remains significant. A longtime friend of Trump’s running mate JD Vance, Vivek is determined both to get Trump elected and to push the Republican Party in a more liberty-friendly direction on certain issues.
Vivek calls his position “national libertarianism,” and he distinguishes it from what he calls the “national protectionist” view, another prominent perspective within right-wing politics. In arecent speechat NatCon, he identified three key areas where these two views diverge: trade, immigration, and the regulatory state.
FEE’s presidentDiogo Costaand I recently sat down with Vivek to discuss these issues, as well as the broader battle for the soul of the American right. To present his ideas fairly and transparently, Vivek’s full responses are included below (omitting a few of the questions we asked for the sake of brevity). After the transcript, I follow up with a few comments of my own.
Q&A with Vivek
You talk about decoupling China from the US. How do you think that can be done most effectively? You’ve mentioned trade with American allies. Would you view that as unilateral free trade, free-trade blocs, or nearshoring? What’s your vision on this issue?
My vision is different from the historical neoliberal consensus, but it is also different from the reactionary protectionist response to it. I think the right way forward is to understand where the neoliberal vision had some blind spots—missed unintended consequences of its own vision—and to correct for those without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. That’s where I come from at a high level.
One of the areas where I think the neoliberal vision missed the plot was failing to recognize the way in which it increased US economic dependence on China—our chief geopolitical and, dare I say, military adversary—for sectors critical to our own national security. The most salient example of that is our reliance on China for supplies—including electronics, but other forms of supply as well—for our own military, for our own defense industrial base. That doesn’t make sense.
And I think that that’s consistent with a principled libertarian position. Even Friedrich von Hayek laid this out inThe Road to Serfdom, that a nation should not depend on an adversary or an enemy for its own national defense. To the extent that you believe national defense is necessary, it is senseless for that national defense to depend on an adversary to provide, it’s illogical.
So my view is that we need to focus on limiting and eventually eliminating US dependence on China for sectors critical to our own national security. That’s different from the historical neoliberal view, or at least one version of the neoliberal view, which is that somehow trade with even adversaries like China—or potential adversaries—would change who they are. I think we’ve learned that that hasn’t worked out as planned, and I can lay out a number of ways in which that’s revealed itself.
However, that is different from the reactionary response, which is to say, “Therefore, we need to abandon free trade.” Actually, the irony is that if you want to reduce the US’s economic dependence on China for those critical sectors, that requires more, not less, trade with other allies—Japan, South Korea, India, the Philippines, Vietnam, among many others.
So that’s my view, that you have to identify what your actual priorities are. If it’s the national security protection of our own defense industrial base, then that means more, not less, trade with allies to enable less to no trade with China in those areas. And that’s different from the protection from price pressure of American manufacturers, which is, I think, the protectionist response, which is very different from mine.
As it relates to trade—I think there’s also two different categories for the discussion around tariffs. One category is to say that we want to protect American manufacturers from the effects of foreign price competition. The other, which I’m actually much more sympathetic to—and which I’m even in favor of—is to say that we should not be treated differently than the counterparty treats us. So if the counterparty is already applying higher tariffs on our goods, then we should say that we should play on the same level playing field. But the flipside is that if they eliminate the tariffs, we eliminate the tariffs too. That, I think, makes a lot of sense amongst allied nations.
But amongst actual military adversaries or long-run (dare I use the word) enemies, then I think the calculus changes from being about economics to being about security.
Another issue you talk about is immigration. Obviously one of the impacts of immigration is an economic impact, and there are a lot of economists who argue that opening up borders, or at least allowing for more free immigration, can have a lot of positive economic impacts. Bryan Caplan, for example, has his bookOpen Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration, and he says “The bottom line is that open borders has jaw-dropping potential to enrich migrants and natives alike.” Do you agree with this take? Why or why not? What’s your perspective on the economic impacts of immigration?
The perspective that open borders would somehow be an economic boon for the United States?
Yeah.
Yeah I reject that vision. I reject it on its own terms that it’s economically necessarily good for the United States, but I also reject the premise that economics is the sole foundation for immigration policy. This is what puts thenationalinto national libertarian.
I think a nation without borders quite literally is not a nation, by definition. I think a nation requires the existence of borders to exist. And I think that the purpose of immigration policy should be to, yes, advance the interests of the people who are already here, but that includes not just the economic interests, but the civic interests, of the people who are here as well. I think civic cohesion is impossible in the United States of America unless the nation is bound together by people who share certain civic commitments in common.
That’s why I think immigration policy needs to take into account screening for the kinds of immigrants who know the language of the United States of America, which is English. Screen for immigrants who share the ideals that the United States of America was founded on, in the form of the kinds of civics exams that you use for citizenship, I would say bring that even further up in the process to other forms of immigration as well.
I think it requires loyalty oaths before someone becomes a citizen. I think we need to preserve that and eliminate dual citizenship as a category. I don’t think dual citizenship is coherent because it requires an individual to pledge his principal allegiance to two different nations at the same time.
But that is different from saying that we need to restrict immigration to protect American workers from the effects of foreign labor price competition. That, I think, risks [falling] into a protectionist worldview that is solving for a different goal; I reject that on its premise as well. So do I believe the United States is just an economic zone? No, I don’t. I believe the United States is anation, grounded in certain ideals. But I think that we should then use those ideals as part of our civic screening for our immigration process to enhance both the economy and also the civic strength of the United States. That’s different from saying we have to protect American workers from the effects of foreign price competition; that’s worse for everybody—workers, manufacturers, and American citizens here alike.
And again, that’s different from the historical (or the ultra-neoliberal or liberal) perspective that’s skeptical of the existence of borders altogether. But it’s also different from the protectionist response that says that we need to protect American workers and coddle them from the effects of somebody else who can do the same job on our own soil more competitively.
You talk about dismantling the regulatory state, and you’ve mentioned not wanting a “right-wing nanny state.” We recently saw a victory in the Supreme Court on that front with the overturning of Chevron. Are there other rulings that are currently propping up the regulatory state that you’d like to see overturned?
There’s a couple good ones that I’d point to as well. BeforeLoper Bright, which is the case that overturned the Chevron deference standard, you had in 2022West Virginia v. EPA, which ruled on what is called the “major questions doctrine.” They said if it deals with a major policy question, then an administrative agency cannot just write a rule to enact that policy; it has to go through the lawmaking process of Congress. I believe that actually renders quite literally most, as in a majority, of federal regulations unconstitutional. That is seismic in its impact.
You take another case likeSEC v. Jarkesy, which said that administrative law judges—which aren’t really judges appointed through the constitutional process, but they are “judges” that sit within an administrative agency—are unconstitutional, because you can’t have a judge sitting within the same investigative agency that also writes rules.
I think these three victories pave the path for a true dismantling of the administrative state that wasn’t even possible back in 2017. And now I think it’s up to us to actually seize that opportunity to restore the essence of our constitutional republic. That’s the civic point of it. But it’s also I think the greatest form of economic stimulus we could give this country, to massively, not just rein in, but dismantle that regulatory state that has reached far beyond its constitutional scope.
Do you have any take on the agents of the regulatory state? In the economics literature we talk aboutbureaucratic sclerosis, and Fukuyamatalks about vetocracy. How do you see that machine operating?
I think America as a nation has been paralyzed by middle management. I think that applies in every sphere—in the corporate sphere, in the educational sphere, in our universities, but most notably in our own government. The people we elect to run the government are not the ones running the government. The people who set most government policy and affect the lives of everyday Americans are not the people who were ever elected to those positions. And there’s no accountability as a consequence.
I think the rise of this managerial class crushes the will of the everyday citizen. I think that happens in spheres even outside the government in our culture; that’s a separate discussion. But I think our government, especially the federal government—although it exists at the level of all 50 states too. I think the managerial class is alive and well at the state level in every one of the 50 states as well. That’s, I think, ultimately what will require dismantling. And I think if our Founding Fathers were alive and saw where we are today, they would say the exact same thing.
Another case that comes to mind isWickard v. Filburn, where the Supreme Court basically ruled that doing your own thing on your own property is interstate commerce, and suddenly everything is interstate commerce. What would you think about overturning something like that?
They ran a truck through the Commerce Clause. I think there’s two ways to look at this. First, doctrinally I’d love to overturn that, but that has to come from the Supreme Court. [Second,] I think that there’s discipline [needed] for people who become Congressmen and Senators to say that they’re not going to rely on the Commerce Clause, or an expanded reading of the Commerce Clause, as the basis for passing legislation. And the truth is, Republicans do it all the time—of course Democrats do it, but I think Republicans do it all the time too.
That requires the exercise of some level of constitutional restraint. I ran to be the President, but if I were advising somebody who was running to be a Senator, I would tell them the same thing. You don’t need to wait for the Supreme Court to solve that problem through litigation, you can solve it right there, in Congress, but particularly in the US Senate.
How do you see the future of this battle for the American right?
It’s not going to be up before this election, for obvious reasons. I think this election is much more about bigger-picture questions relating to defeating certain dogmas that quintessentially come from the left. This is not going to be ripe in the next four months. But I do think it’s going to become ripe over the next four years, regardless of who wins in November. And I don’t think we’re going to be able to sweep a lot of those differences under the rug.
For my part, I actually respect, deeply respect, a lot of people who adopt the protectionist outlook, even though I disagree with them on the content of it. I think we need more people in politics who actually have an ideology, rather than politicians who really just wave in whatever direction the wind blows on a given day. I’ll respect a principled leftist more than I respect somebody who happens to utter the right phrases that might land well on my ears but they don’t know why they’re saying them.
There are certain prominent Republicans in the protectionist camp who I deeply respect and I think are a valuable addition as voices to American politics. I think we need more politicians with a clear ideology. I think we don’t have enough ideology in politics, actually. People turned the wordideologicalinto a bad word. I think that we don’t have enough people who actually are ideological, even ones who disagree with me.
But that, I hope, is the direction that the future of the American right goes, where even those who disagree with me are at least ideological in their views. And we can openly, respectfully, admit that. I’m ideological in my views, right? Certainly in domestic policy. Foreign policy is a different point—I think you’ve got to be deeply pragmatic. But I think on domestic policy you have to have certain principles. And for people who have different principles than mine, I respect that as long as they’re open about it. I think it’s going to make our country stronger and make the future of the conservative movement stronger if we’re able to have that debate and dialogue in the open.
A Few Responses
Though I have some differences with Vivek on the topic of trade policy, it was heartening to hear him push back on protectionism so candidly. There are many in the Republican Party who embrace a “Made in America” vision, but as Vivek rightly points out, cutting yourself off from the rest of the world simply to protect domestic producers from foreign competition is a recipe for economic stagnation.
To avoid getting into the national security debate (seehereandherefor some pro-free-trade analysis on that topic), we chose to focus on the other part of his proposal: expanding trade with allies. We wanted to know how far he would go on this, and specifically what he would think about a policy of unilateral free trade with friendly nations.
His response about ensuring a “level playing field” is certainly the more common view, but it might be prudent for the American right to reconsider this seemingly common-sense approach. As Milton Friedmanpointed outin his 1962 bookCapitalism and Freedom, there is a strong case to be made for unilaterally dropping trade restrictions:
Our tariffs hurt us as well as other countries. We would be benefited by dispensing with our tariffs even if other countries did not. We would of course be benefited even more if they reduce theirs, but our benefiting does not require that they reduce tariffs. Self-interests coincide and do not conflict.
I also have some differences with Vivek on the topic of immigration, and specifically on the economic impact of immigration. To be sure, economics should not be the only factor in that discussion, but it shouldn’t be a non-factor either, especially considering what scholars are saying about the massive potential benefits that could come from having fewer immigration restrictions.
Just how much potential are we talking about? In afamous 2011 papertitledEconomics and Emigration: Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk?, Michael Clemens offered a stunning response:
How large are the economic losses caused by barriers to emigration? Research on this question has been distinguished by its rarity and obscurity, but the few estimates we have should make economists’ jaws hit their desks. The gains to eliminating migration barriers amount to large fractions of world GDP—one or two orders of magnitude larger than the gains from dropping all remaining restrictions on international flows of goods and capital. When it comes to policies that restrict emigration, there appear to be trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk.
Judging by comments like this, scholars seem to be saying there are huge economic upsides to having a less restrictive immigration policy. So while there are certainly other factors to consider, it seems like the economic impact is one factor that perhaps deserves a bit more attention.
Make Politics Ideological Again
Vivek’s comments about making politics more ideological reminded me of Ambrose Bierce, who satirically defined politics as “a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles; the conduct of public affairs for private advantage.”
It seems like Vivek wants to make politics anactualcontest of principles, and not just a charade of one, and that would surely be a step in the right direction.
But while I appreciate that he is genuinely interested in talking about big ideas, I am less fully on board with the content of his ideas. Though he certainly leans in a libertarian direction on certain issues, his overall position still leaves something to be desired for those who want freedom inallits forms.
- About the author: Patrick Carroll is the Managing Editor at the Foundation for Economic Education.
- Source: This article was published at FEE