America has the potential to become an industrial behemoth. That it has not already with a quarter of the twenty-first century now in the rearview mirror is an absolute travesty.
At one point, not too long ago, the United States was the world’s uncontested industrial leader. But in recent decades, owing to a self-hating political establishment nestled in Washington, our once robust manufacturing base has been carved out of cities like Detroit and exported to Beijing and Tijuana.
This shift of industry from West to East began in the mid 1980s as cheaper markets, starting with Japan, then China and India, and more recently, Mexico, Africa, and South America, overtook the United States in many facets of industry, offering sweatshops replete with laborers that charged pennies on the dollar.
Though the products they made were noticeably of lesser quality, it has been a longstanding tenet of neoliberalism that a reduction in quality, however significant, is a small price to pay for the overseas expansion of capital markets.
Besides, as those who believed in this dogma would often assert, free trade was an essential ingredient to the cultivation of democracy.
That the connection between free trade and national sovereignty (let alone democracy) was, at best, a tenuous one was but a minor detail for the evangelists of free trade.
On the flipside of free trade is of course open borders. You could not unleash the free flow of capital without allowing the people, the often-unskilled laborers, who toiled in sweatshops the world over to cross national borders with few, if any, obstructions.
Of course, when examined with a fine-tooth comb, there is no discernible link between free trade and the free flow of people.
To the extent these decisions are united at all, it is out of a sense of a broader commitment to humanity, however defined, which, of course is an ideological aspiration, not a realistic economic agenda. Ideologies are, by definition, not grounded in nuts-and-bolts reality.
Ideologies are a subjective assertion of how the world ought to be, rather than a pragmatic assertion of how things really are. Ideologies, thus, are the antithesis of the straightforward actions one would take to make a country stronger and more prosperous.
Ideologues make things harder than they should be, often unnecessarily so.
In the case of free trade and open borders, both of which are (groundless) dogmas – these policies are based on a particular ideologue’s view of how the world should be.
America, in the middle of the twentieth century, rose to become the dominant industrial superpower of the world.
It rose to that enviable placement not because its rulers shared a globalist ideology, but the very opposite in fact: for the first fifty or sixty years of the last century, the period when the United States rose to international hegemony, its borders were sealed shut (as reflected in this era’s policies, from the Chinese Exclusion Act under President Arthur to Operation Wetback under President Eisenhower).
Relatedly, America’s trade was largely sequestered to its own hemisphere (continuing the tradition started by President Washington, and officially coronated by President Monroe and his famous doctrine).
Despite these policies (and many would counter precisely because of them), America achieved a peak in industrial and cultural might, transforming into the uncontested economic superpower by the end of the Second World War.
This era, in retrospect designated as the climax of American civilization, observed the maturation of a backwater Republic into a global Empire, of a size and level of influence that put Great Britain and Rome, the West’s other two most famous empires, to shame.
During this period, the greenback became the world’s reserve currency. American manufacturing was in a class of its own, and the economy achieved the unthinkable: regularly surpassing six or seven per cent growth year in and year out.
Over just a fifty-year timespan, Americans who were born during a period when horse drawn carriages were still in vogue grew up to bear witness to the fruits of their society’s innovation sending them all the way to the moon.
Fast forward to the present day, and the United States finds itself in a much different situation.
Though the potential for innovation, perhaps surpassing anything seen in the previous century, is within our grasp – insane policies which go under the banner of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”)” and “Environmental, Social, and Governance (“ESG”)” have thus far prevented the 21st century from being the Renaissance it should be on paper based on its mighty potential.
For evidence, look to how Washington has treated the oil and gas industry over the past couple of decades.
Rather than embracing the liquid gold beneath our feet, and the opportunities that sector could have in catapulting our economy to never-before-seen heights, our government’s de facto policy has been to declare all-out war with this sector, in the name of airy “environmentalism” and under initiatives like “the Green New Deal” (which 45 has aptly castigated as a “scam”!).
As a society, we have basically forgone more growth and job opportunities at home, in exchange for greater reliance on foreign competitors like Saudi Arabia and Russia. A recipe for ruin, both economically and in terms of national security.
Those who cling steadfastly to the tenets of neoliberalism assert that oil and gas is an antiquated industry, presently in the throes of being rapidly displaced by alternative energy – like solar, wind, and nuclear.
Whether or not that is true, the claim that we are all going to be driving electric vehicles in five or ten years is downright ludicrous. For the foreseeable future (and likely beyond that), oil is here to stay.
The transformation currently underway in the automobile and energy industry more broadly is reminiscent of the transformation that took place a little over a century ago when Thomas Edison made his lightbulb for widespread use and adoption.
Once that occurred, many had written off gasoline completely, since the switch from kerosene to electric happened nearly overnight and was so resounding as to put doubt in the former’s long-term prospects.
Lo and behold, Henry Ford came along a few short years later and invented his model T, spearheading the internal combustion engine and putting gasoline on the map once again – reigniting an industry that has carried all the way through the present day.
The lesson history teaches is cut from the same cloth of wisdom that inspires Donald Trump’s economic policy. His approach is to embrace everything American innovation offers: oil, gas, electric, nuclear – and whatever else might come down the pike.
Trump’s approach has always been the American approach: embrace everything, understanding full well that industries come and go. That is the beauty of capitalism.
What might appear to be the twilight of a particular source of energy’s reign might actually turn out to be some growing pains of an adolescent phase, as gas proved to be a century ago.
Even if we adopt the deterministic approach to gasoline becoming one day obsolete, that approach of course hinges on the rule that the future will resemble the present, which is anything but forgone.
The prospects of new innovation (maybe space exploration really starts to take off, requiring us to draw more from our oil reserves that currently provide us with a healthy surplus in global trade), or the bleaker prospect of global war, thereupon requiring a kind of “total war” like situation where all of society’s resources – including its vast oil supplies – is mobilized for armed conflict, demonstrates the array of unpredictable outcomes that might reignite energy sources like oil and gas now being written off as less needed.
The bottom line is that we have these resources naturally in abundance.
Since 2009, there has been a surge of innovation in hydraulic fracking that now allows us to tap into once unreachable reserves, like the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania, that has provided a boon to the national economy.
These developments have helped restore America’s competitive standing in global oil and gas production, an equilibrium not seen in over half a century.
In the economics of global trade, there has long been a pro-tariff theory referred to as the “infant industry hypothesis.”
What this theory calls for is higher tariffs on imports, particularly with respect to foreign products that compete with domestic producers, in order to cultivate a friendly business environment for manufactures at home.
While the theory has been derided by globalists, particularly of the anti-American variety, who are utterly incapable of competing in American markets without the benefits afforded to them by “free trade,” in reality the logic behind the theory works (and not just for infant industries), which is why it has so many detractors.
Donald Trump’s decision to tariff – basically, a form of tax – all goods that come to our shores starting at 10% is a clever political move.
It is guaranteed to bring billions of dollars into the country, while also aiding America’s companies – whatever their stage in life might be – from automobile manufacturers to metal producers to pharmaceuticals — to compete on fairer grounds, while mitigating as much as possible the harms from foreign competitors.
Free trade absolutism should be more widely seen as a vote of no confidence for Americans and American industry. America is the land of the best schools, most educated citizens, and most skilled workforce in the world.
That remains true today, despite our countless self-inflicted political problems. Our manufacturers are more efficient and innovative, and our products are overwhelmingly, simply better – qualitatively superior – to their foreign counterparts.
Nobody would rather buy a Chinese-made refrigerator or a forklift from Vietnam over their American counterparts.
Common sense dictates that by and large foreign products are made cheaper, have shorter lifespans, and are far less durable than anything made on these shores.
Of course, there is the occasional exception – German, Italian, and Japanese car companies regularly go toe-to-toe with their American counterparts.
But even that rule is not necessarily ironclad, as the emergence of Tesla, an American company, in recent years, goes to show.
It also underscores just how much more America should be doing, relative to their international peers, especially considering that America’s economy is almost three times the size of each of those countries combined.
Donald Trump’s unshakable belief in American industry is something of a throwback to an earlier age when all of society had confidence in the American dream, and how the spirit of hard work and gritty determination can outcompete the rest of the world.
That was once true, and there is no cosmic law in the universe – despite what the Left would have you believe – that says it cannot be true again. It can most certainly be our reality now. The politics of decline is a choice.
It is incumbent upon the Right, and really, anyone who believes in America, to not buy into the Left’s narrative of despair. Donald Trump cuts right through the Left’s nonsense in a way that no other politician could.
He more clearly and easily recognizes that focusing societal resources on woke initiatives are a non-starter.
Equity, which has consumed the national consciousness for so long, particularly since Barack Obama came onto our political scene, should be dispensed with altogether.
Though conservatives should attack LGBT indoctrination in schools, for example, and the Left’s increasingly radical policies on gender and race, which have men competing in women’s sports and changing in women’s locker rooms, is a travesty of justice on so many levels — our society should seek to reach a point where these degenerate culture points are not even a topic worthy of conversation.
Of course, it is a grievous injustice for the girls forced to endure the indignities – in fact, the rank evil – downstream of an insidious philosophy that disregards biological (and spiritual) distinctions between the sexes (itself, ultimately, with roots in a denial of God, and man animated by hubris taking the Almighty’s place).
But often overlooked are wokeism’s social costs: it stands as an injustice, a grave offense, to visionaries and innovators of all sorts, who are forced to waste precious time and energy on ridiculous policies, rather than focus their attention on elevating society to new and exhilarating frontiers.
Just imagine how great America could be again if its greatest minds did not even have to think about woke things like tampons in men’s bathrooms.
Such a society might, just by accident, end up producing a Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Edison, monuments of genius whose examples are to mankind’s collective benefit.
Yes, America did that before. We should not be so jaded as to think it cannot do so again.
Donald Trump’s unapologetic confidence in American industry is reified by his calls for sweeping tax cuts for the middle class — extending well beyond no tax on tips, overtime, and social security payments — and deregulating ourselves out of the bureaucratic morass that stifles innovation presently at the highest levels of government.
Another side of the equation, however, is the President’s commitment to the rule of law – particularly, the Constitution’s endowments to speak – and innovate – without the petty encumbrances of a vindictive and unhinged District Attorney, for example, who might forsake her oath and instead use her time to instead aggrandize her own power rather than fight criminals and promote the public good through constructive, socially beneficial policies.
American freedom, which furnished the seeds for the American dream, necessarily hinges on the protections guaranteed by the Constitution, including due process of law as well as the five freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment, in particular.
Donald Trump, who has been ignominiously dragged through the mud of weaponized lawfare like nobody else in American history, understands how existential the danger is – both personally and professionally.
Without a robust First Amendment in particular, the state can and will silence through censorship and political prosecutions those who dare voice a dissenting view, or exercise their fundamental right to peacefully demonstrate, against the powers that be.
A dissident American today – which is really a ‘silent majority’ of the population – finds himself not just in the crosshairs of the state, but also increasingly the private sector, too.
Big tech companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter before Musk liberated it have de-platformed people whose views they found “problematic,” despite the First Amendment’s stringent guarantees for speech – which any private company should also uphold, being an American institution after all.
The problem with de-platforming people, particularly in today’s age, is that it often comes paired with economic costs, sometimes sizable, given how much technology has advanced and permeates nearly every aspect of our lives today.
Financial institutions, too, have been known to “de-bank” those with dissident views, including members of Donald Trump’s own immediate family, who were not allowed to use the services of certain banks simply because of their views and who they are.
This type of mentality is communist to the core – it is deeply offensive to the Constitution and the principles animating our cherished freedoms. It is the very opposite of democracy, representing a lurch towards totalitarianism and total control over what Americans think and say.
The Constitution – and ultimately, Donald Trump’s willingness to adopt our sacred law’s tenets to the point of risking his life for this cause – is perhaps the only thing that has kept America from going fully despotic over the last four years. Right now, it is teetering on the edge of oblivion.
This Russian roulette ploy with our freedoms, the status quo since Biden was installed into office, is not something that America will ever want to go through again.
A rigorous commitment to the rule of law, in its original definition, predicated on the Constitution’s robust freedoms and limited mandate is integral to saving America, and to ensure our inherited freedoms continue through the generations.
Economic freedom is inextricably bound up with individual liberty; the two cannot possibly be separated.
At this pivotal moment, the United States faces a stark choice: it can either launch into an era marked by exceptional innovation and freedom, breaking free from recent constraints, or it can slide further towards a governance model where unelected officials, aligned with narrow interests and lacking national allegiance, dictate the path.
This latter direction not only threatens economic disaster but also undermines the core constitutional liberties that have been the bedrock of American ingenuity through the ages.
