Broke woke

FreeCons urge policymakers to remember why the Left has faltered

As FreeCons compete with NatCons and other populist voices to shape the future of American conservatism, we reject the notion that we are the “moderates” and they are the “extreme Right.”

Freedom Conservatives do believe in the power of civility and the possibility of persuasion. We practice constructive engagement across political divides. But let’s be clear: on a wide range of policy issues, NatCons have positioned themselves to our left, not to our right.

For example, we favor tax cuts and smaller government. They favor tax increases (tariffs) and bigger government (subsidizing industries they like, regulating industries they oppose, and insisting that the entitlements forming the bulk of federal spending are sacrosanct).

We believe in fiscal responsibility — rapidly reducing federal deficits in the short term and balancing federal operating budgets in the long run (just as states and localities must balance their operating budgets and borrow only to fund capital expenses). The National Conservatism Statement of Principles makes no mention of the issue.

We champion free speech. All too many nationalist-populists resist restrictions on their own expression but remain open to using federal power to punish their enemies.

We favor extensive devolution of power from Washington — where it is wielded unconstitutionally and ineffectually — to states, localities, private institutions, and individuals. NatCons pay lip service to the concept but in practice prioritize national power over federalism, subsidiarity, and civil society.

Even on social- and foreign-policy questions, on which Freedom Conservatives are hardly unanimous, you won’t find us parroting the rhetoric of hard-Left protesters, as many NatCons do.

Today, we feature the work of FreeCons who understand how the American Left lost its way — and why the American Right must avoid making the same mistakes.

Crazy ideas

Russ Greene is a senior fellow for economic progress at Stand Together and former director of government relations and research at CrossFit, Inc. He’s also a FreeCon signatory.

In a recent essay for The Free Press, Greene explained the role that monetary policy played in the rise and fall of woke politics.

“Companies started backtracking on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and on environmental, social, and governance–based (ESG) initiatives even before it was clear Trump would be last year’s Republican nominee,” he wrote.

Citing economic research, Greene argued that ESG investing was at least in part an “artifact” of zero interest rate policy.

“When money is free, crazy ideas get funded,” he wrote. “When money has a price, funders and investors want to see a direct link to value. That means ideological pet projects are the first to go.”

Easy money didn’t just boost the gain on crazy ideas from the Left.

“On the Right, the zero interest-rate policy era featured years of heady talk about industrial policy and wielding the power of the administrative state,” Greene stated. “The era of limited government had ended, Reaganism was passé, and we were all social democrats now, those on the New Right said.”

They were mistaken. “CEOs and politicians who continue to act like money is free will pay a steep price,” he concluded.

Labor dispute

John Tillman is CEO of the American Culture Project, chairman of the Illinois Policy Institute, and a FreeCon signatory.

In a recent National Review piece, Tillman argued that Republican lawmakers seeking to strengthen labor unions aren’t just making a policy mistake. They’re making a political mistake.

Donald Trump appealed to working-class voters by promising “a new era of optimism and opportunity,” he wrote. Trump delivered during his first term, and his second-term agenda of “permanent tax cuts and a smaller regulatory state are designed to deliver even greater benefits, though tariffs may complicate things.”

Tillman explained that the president also “spoke to the working class’s nationalism and patriotism — values that Democrats abandoned long ago. He clearly aligns with working Americans’ values by opposing things like biological boys who claim to be girls competing in girls’ sports and racial discrimination in the name of ‘equity.‘”

Rather than using government power to prop up unions, he concluded, Republicans should champion freedom and growth.

“Workers want to take their future into their own hands — a future of the opportunity, prosperity, and patriotism that unions consistently oppose.”

Affordable again

Bryan Riley is director of the Free Trade Initiative at the National Taxpayers Union and a FreeCon signatory.

At RealClearPolicy, Riley urged the Trump administration to prioritize the war on high prices the president promised during his 2024 campaign.

Consider the egg shortage. In response to what Trump called a “disaster,” the administration has announced plans to import eggs from Turkey and other countries.

“The ’war on affordability’ waged by the Biden Administration contributed significantly to Trump’s victory,” Riley wrote. “Trump responded by pledging to eliminate rent-seeking practices that drive up costs, roll back counterproductive requirements that raise the cost of appliances, and eliminate policies that drive up the costs of food and fuel.

“That’s a winning approach,” he continued, and one that should extend to tariffs and commerce. Rather than fight trade wars, the administration should seek to remove barriers to American exports while making goods and services more affordable for American households.

“Everyone who wants to see Trump succeed should encourage him to reconsider these costly tariff threats,” Riley argued. “The stock market selloff that initially accompanied his most recent tariffs should cause his administration to rethink proposed new duties on lumber, steel and aluminum, copper, food, and just about everything else under the sun.

“Trump recently reminded Americans that he is fighting to ‘make America affordable again.’ Rethinking tariffs can help him win that fight.”

In the mix

• In Fusion magazine, activist Jace White reflected on the Freedom Conservatism Conference he attended last month at the National Press Club in Washington. “It’s clear the project is helping draw attention to the rift that is forming in the conservative movement,” he wrote, “and bringing together people who want to respond to it.”

For FreeCons to succeed, however, they must find new ways to translate abstract principles into persuasive arguments for practical policies.

“Improving the quality of free market arguments and the increasing the number of people skilled at making them is the best investment the movement can make right now,” White wrote.

FreeCon 2025 “brought together a great group of principled people who want to protect free market conservatism. Now, they have some arguments to win.”

• In The Wall Street Journal, Brian Blase urged Congress and the administration to reform the flawed funding formula that facilitates Medicaid abuses and costs taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

“Congress should pay states the same percentage for able-bodied working age adults that they do for traditional enrollees, a reform proposed by President Obama in 2012,” wrote Blase, president of the Paragon Health Institute.

His organization also advocates moving nearly half of Medicaid expansion enrollees to a subsidized exchange plan, a reform supported by 70% of Americans.

“Medicaid abuse breeds corruption: Politically powerful healthcare providers enjoy windfalls, while states focus on maximizing federal Medicaid dollars instead of administering needed care.”

• In Civitas Outlook, FreeCon signatory Jonathan Adler argued that attorneys representing or purporting to represent state governments are challenging federal actions with increasingly dubious claims.

“While some of the suits concern efforts to pause or limit funding to state institutions, such as state universities, or seek to limit the preemptive effect of federal policy, most concern naked policy disagreements between Republicans and Democrats over the proper course of federal policy” wrote Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

“Blue states are challenging the policy initiatives of a Republican president not because these initiatives constrain state choices or injure state interests but because they advance the agenda of the other team. Red states, in turn, are lining up to support the President without regard for whether distinct state interests are at stake.”

States should be empowered to defend their actual powers — and, thus, our federalist system — by going to court, but “where genuine state interests are not at stake, these sorts of suits should be left to those who are directly injured by the government action complained of.”