Leftward Drift Of America’s Political Duopoly – Oped

Trump's social and economic policy is a mixed bag of leftist and rightist tenets. Many still fail to grasp the core ideological principles of his populist approach, left to rely solely on the vague "Make America Great Again" slogan. Representatives of the Republican Party and conservatives generally assume themselves to be right-wing. Indeed, within the American duopoly political system, Republicans are positioned to the right of Democrats on a relative scale.

However, on an absolute scale, both major American political parties today occupy positions on the political left. While this assertion may seem counterintuitive at first glance, this article offers some evidence to support this conclusion. Looking ahead, I will note that the main point of convergence is the fact that both Democrats and Republicans alike rely extensively on omnipotent state to address all societal problems, which essentially positions them in left-wing ideological territory.

The Democratic Party is evidently left-wing by design and policy, closely resembling Europe's Social-Democratic parties. Often known as Evolutionary Socialists or Democratic Socialists, Democrats explicitly advocate for increased governmental roles in healthcare, education, wealth redistribution, and extensive regulation of the economy. They believe societal issues are primarily resolved through state intervention rather than individual initiative or free-market solutions.

Republicans, traditionally perceived as the party of limited government, have gradually drifted leftward, abandoning core conservative principles over recent decades. In this article, 'conservative' refers to a flavor of conservative philosophy rooted in free-market principles and the maximization of individual freedom, closely aligned with libertarianism. The last genuinely center-right president was Ronald Reagan, who comprehensively understood and articulated the dangers inherent to expansive government power. Reagan famously asserted that the government was not the solution but rather the problem itself. Since his era, Republican leadership has increasingly embraced state intervention in various forms, marking a pronounced departure from authentic conservative tenets. I argue that the current ideological stance of the Republican Party is center-left.

What policies are keeping Republicans hooked on the center? Let’s take Trump presidency as an example. One of Trump's most commendable right-wing economic moves involved reducing taxes and advocating for deregulation. Tax reductions typically align with conservative economic thought, intended to foster economic growth by enabling individuals and businesses to retain a larger share of their earnings. Similarly, deregulation reflects conservative acknowledgment that excessive bureaucratic processes impede productivity and stifle innovation. Trump, with firsthand experience as a businessman, vividly illustrated the impediments caused by burdensome regulations, especially in construction and real estate industries.

However, Trump's commitment to conservative principles wasn't consistent. A prominent example was his staunch support for eminent domain, the state’s ability to seize private property, allegedly for the public good. Trump's justification was pragmatic: without eminent domain, infrastructural projects like highways couldn't efficiently proceed. Yet, from a libertarian perspective, eminent domain severely undermines the sanctity of private property, a cornerstone principle of genuine individualist philosophy. Any support for such state intrusion places one firmly on the political left.

Trump should be praised for his efforts to eliminate wokism, social-engineering and restoring common sense. He courageously challenged the increasingly pervasive ideology of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) which has permeated educational institutions, corporations, and government agencies. Trump's attempts to curtail this ideology within governmental operations were important, highlighting how collectivist thinking can erode the individual autonomy fundamental to a free society. At the same time, we see that American business tend to sway with the wind—eagerly adopting DEI, only to quietly retreat later when the administration changes. It’s disappointing to see American companies lose their spine, too tied to the state’s shifts. This suggests a society tilting toward a collective mindset.

The Trump administration aimed to streamline government, trim its size, and rein in spending—a worthy goal that, if realized, could greatly benefit society. Yet, small government does not simply mean its nominal size—although reducing this is inherently beneficial—but rather its minimal footprint in socio-economic affairs. True conservatism prioritizes limiting governmental power and maximizing individual freedom, resisting state interference in private decisions. Sadly, this doesn’t always seem to top the Republican priorities.

Next, let’s consider what precisely constitutes the Republicans' leftward drift? Fundamentally, it revolves around their reliance on government intervention. Despite rhetoric favoring small government, Republican policies frequently employ the state's regulatory and economic power extensively.

A striking misstep in Trump's policies is his enthusiastic embrace of tariffs, which, despite his rhetoric, neither shrank the overall trade deficit nor significantly spurred the onshoring of American businesses during his first term. Tariffs are essentially taxes imposed on imported goods, a governmental measure that contradicts conservative economic principles. They increase the cost of goods for consumers and businesses, inadvertently transferring wealth from private entities to government coffers. Republicans traditionally advocate for reduced taxation, yet tariffs effectively increase economic burdens, limiting market freedom and consumer choice.

The rationale behind tariffs typically revolves around protecting domestic industries from foreign competition. However, this justification often lacks credibility, as demonstrated by Trump's tariff policy regarding Canada and Mexico. The American automotive industry, for instance, was blindsided by tariffs that Trump imposed without their prior request or even consultation. Instead of benefiting, automakers found themselves pleading for tariff exemptions, fearing significant economic losses. This scenario starkly illustrates how such protectionist measures often backfire, undermining their supposed intent and inflicting unintended economic harm.

To grasp why tariffs typically harm the economy, it's essential to understand the principle of competitive advantage in international economics. Competitive advantage occurs when a nation or business produces goods or services more efficiently than others, benefiting from specialization and trade. Trump’s claim that the U.S. doesn't need Canadian lumber neglected this principle entirely. By arbitrarily deciding on behalf of businesses from whom they should buy their resources, Trump engaged in profoundly leftist governmental interference. In a genuine free-market economy, companies—not governments—should choose their suppliers based on efficiency, quality, and cost-effectiveness.

Furthermore, autarky—economic self-sufficiency—is inherently leftist, opposing right-wing market-based economics advocating free and open trade. Trump's tariff strategy, whether intentional or not, veered dangerously toward economic isolationism, undermining the core conservative value of free enterprise and open markets.

What socio-economic policies would bring Republicans back to right side of the political spectrum?

There are critical regulatory policies hampering economic growth that genuine conservative approaches would dismantle. The first and most significant regulation ripe for removal is the mandatory minimum wage, a state-imposed constraint distorting the natural market dynamics of labor supply and demand. True economic freedom involves allowing the market to determine wages organically, optimizing employment and economic efficiency based on real-time conditions and individual merit rather than artificial government mandates.

Rent control policies similarly represent another destructive intervention that exacerbates the housing crisis rather than resolving it. Government-imposed rent limits artificially reduce housing supply and quality, discouraging investment and leading to chronic shortages and deteriorating housing conditions. Eliminating rent control would allow market forces to adjust housing availability and affordability naturally, genuinely addressing shortages through incentivized production rather than misguided state-imposed restrictions.

Another key regulatory element needing improvement is our tax code. It’s overly complex, burdensome, and riddled with loopholes. Our progressive tax system acts as a wealth redistribution mechanism, placing individuals and businesses in tricky situations, especially near tax bracket thresholds. Progressive taxation subtly and gradually erodes property rights, unfairly penalizing success. Reforming the IRS and adopting a simplified tax code with a modest flat tax would be a better path forward. There’s no need to create yet another government agency, the ERS, to handle tariffs and other external contributions to the treasury.

This is definitely not an exhaustive list of policies; rather, it highlights just a few key areas needing attention, leaving room for broader discussion and additional reforms. Ultimately, genuine economic revitalization relies not on expansive government intervention but on policies increasing productivity, innovation, and product quality. True right-wing economic ideology emphasizes minimal state involvement, enabling individuals and businesses maximum freedom to determine their economic destinies. Any deviation from this principle, however well-intentioned, inevitably pushes policy into leftist territory, restricting liberty, stifling economic vitality, and perpetuating state dependency.