Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trumpism: No Zip Code Left Behind
Did you see the funny video that Trump 
Tweeted out making fun of the Time magazine article on Trumpism? In the Tweet, the Trump 20xx signs go on to “Trump 4eva” (forever). A nice troll job. But I want to discuss the magazine article and the idea of “Trumpism.”
The Time article goes along with a Vanity Fair article, which was preceded by an epic rant by Tucker Carlson that all describe an emerging school of governance that seeks to spread prosperity throughout America. The effort to move conservatism in this direction started a few years ago with the “Reformicons.” Later, in 2015-ish, Steve Bannon tried to expand the idea of a more populist conservatism, which he referred to as “Alt-Right.” That label got co-opted by White Identity Leftists, so Bannon had to drop that term, but the ideas formed the basis of the Trump 2016 campaign. The movement is now growing under the name of “Trumpism,” but that term has baggage and the promoters will surely choose another term after Trump leaves office.
What is this Trumpism? It is the idea that the previous economic philosophy (economic/domestic/international) was failing for too many Americans. The new thinking would look to the “forgotten man,” who has lost prosperity and the hope of improved conditions. To turn a phrase, it is a “no zip code left behind” mindset. This is contrasted with the Bush/Obama idea of prosperity anywhere was good enough and that it was OK for the government to shut down old industries and build up new ones, eg., trading coal jobs for solar jobs, without regard to the impact on the people. The new thinking wants less destruction in capitalism’s creative destruction.
The renewed idea of a government “for the people” includes the idea of being pro-family. While previous presidents pushed the idea of individualism, the new thinking (which is really an old thinking) considers the family unit of two parents and children to be the basic building block of a civil society. This was effectuated in the tax cuts of 2017, which included a big increase in the child tax credit (thanks to Marco Rubio). That tax reform package also includes provisions for special economic zones, which target zip codes with less prosperity.
On the international front, Trumpism uses economic penalties against countries that abuse trade (China, EU, India) and seeks to cushion the destructive impact of trade. Human and cultural capital are recognized as our greatest assets. These are things that must be protected. This also means reducing the adventurism of Bush/Obama. War is very expensive. Not just in dollars, but in the lives of poor young men that do the fighting and dying for Americas largest corporations. The list of casualties in the Middle East wars of the 21st century includes zero corporations. This is more a return to the vision of The Founders than radical new thinking.
I don’t know where this goes from here, but the movement is growing. It has young, talented and enthusiastic people. It has people of all races and geographic regions and it is a force for change of both the GOP and the DNC as well as for America.
Published in Economics
I think it can be distiled farther down to ” Americans first” not America first.
Ie, if it is good for Wall Street but hurts Main Street, then lets re-evaluate.
I was either reading one of Rufus’ posts or a Reason comment thread that tackled the beneficiaries of inflation vs deflation.
Rufus’ posts go on a lot about how at one point or another, the economy was mor cyclical – growth and shrink periods were normal and both part of a healthy economy. The insistance that shrinking economies are BAD has led to monetary policies that favor inflationary spending.
The comments I had read were that those who hold hard assets – like gold, real estate, or stock – are beneficiaries of an inflationary economy. Their assets are traded for more dollars when liquidation occurs.
However, the beneficiaries of a deflationary economy are the opposite – those whose wealth is measured by the cash in their checking or savings accounts see their spending power increase as the money they have is capable of buying more.
Our very inflationary economy has concentrated wealth to those with assets, causing those without assets to struggle with what cash they have, not able to invest in the economy the same way the investing class has.
Well, that’s outrageous, isn’t it?
In all seriousness, you’ve laid this out very well. I just hope that the young, enthusiastic and talented people you describe are sufficient to hold off the socialist threat emerging from the left.
If there is such a thing as “Trumpism” it lives as a duality. There is an underlying grassroots theory that the President’s supporters adhere to, and then there’s the President’s operating theory of flattery, controlled chaos and always, always being on the offensive.
The latter is exclusive to Trump. The former is the wave he rode to the White House and will animate Republican politics for years to come.
I hate labels – and both sides use them liberally, no pun intended. I really feel like we are entering a cross-roads. Too many sides, too much mis-communication leads to one big Tower of Babel – and we know how that turned out.
Its good to see Trumpers are finally trying to move beyond political nihilism into actually having intellectual thoughts on policy. Ahmari made an attempt at some social ideas, kind of (amidst the standard trashing of conservatives). Tucker has his economic rants and his Elizabeth (free college) Warren love.
Trump still has virtually no agenda for 2020…but maybe he’ll cobble some of these ideas together into coherent policy. Either way, I’d focus on 2020 ideas before thinking about 2032 legacies.
It’s always been there. You have to listen first.
The success of British Tory Democracy provides an interesting template. I would not recommend wholesale adoption of paternalism as a feature of a revived conservative movement. After all, we have well established beliefs in the limitations of government not shared by our cousins.
What is the governing philosophy of the Bushes if not paternalistic? It became baked into the cake once you accept that New Dealism isn’t going away. In truth, the paternal instincts of politicians is only separated by a matter of degree. (And in many ways it’s also true of the electorate. I only want to live long enough to get the 14% of my lifetime earnings back.)
The co-opting (perverting, really) of Conservative labels will continue. Regardless of the policies or the people, the Demediacrats will paint any movement as run by corporatists/plutocrats/white-supremecists/theocratists/hicks.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
The government trading coal jobs for solar jobs is not capitalism’s creative destruction.
Trumpism is “I want good stuff for Americans”? Very novel idea.