Is Trump’s latest economic move brilliant strategy or a radical departure for conservatives? The decision to invest in Intel has stirred a fascinating debate, challenging long-held beliefs about government’s role in the economy. Are we witnessing a pragmatic shift or an ideological betrayal?

The recent debate surrounding Donald Trump’s proposed industrial policy, particularly the government’s investment in Intel, has ignited a significant ideological clash within conservative circles, challenging traditional notions of free-market capitalism. This move, perceived by some as an embrace of “socialism,” is being reframed by proponents as a pragmatic approach to modern economic challenges.

Many established conservatives, echoing sentiments from a decade ago, would have vehemently opposed such governmental intervention, viewing it as an anathema to their core principles. Jonah Goldberg’s observation highlights this internal conflict, suggesting a shift in conservative stances or, perhaps, a selective amnesia regarding past ideological purity when faced with new political realities.

Despite contemporary outcry, a lesser-known but historically significant school of thought within the American right has long advocated for robust industrial policies. Figures like Pat Buchanan were prescient in championing government involvement in strategic industries, demonstrating that the concept of national economic strategy is not entirely alien to conservative doctrine.

President Trump’s administration frames the Intel deal and subsequent plans not as a departure into socialism, but as a realistic evolution of American economic strategy. The United States, in fact, possesses a long history of government ownership and strategic investment, with entities like Amtrak serving as readily identifiable examples of state involvement in critical sectors. This government investment is presented as a continuity rather than a radical break.

A cornerstone of Trump’s economic policy involves establishing an American sovereign wealth fund, a mechanism for the government to invest in strategically important companies and generate profits. This fund, envisioned as a tool for US competitiveness in the 21st century, would emulate the successful models adopted by nations like China, which wield substantial state-controlled investment vehicles.

The appeal of such a fund lies in its potential to generate revenue for the government through market profits, offering an alternative to traditional tax increases or debt issuance. This concept draws parallels to past conservative discussions around “privatizing” Social Security, where mandatory payments would be channeled into market-based funds for higher returns, albeit with inherent risks concerning government guarantees.

However, Trump’s approach takes a double risk compared to typical sovereign wealth funds, which primarily focus on maximizing financial returns. His vision extends beyond mere profit generation, aiming to actively conduct industrial strategy by investing in economically vital but potentially vulnerable companies like Intel, thus intertwining financial objectives with strategic national development.

This pragmatic outlook finds a historical echo in the Cold War era, when conservative leaders like William F. Buckley Jr., despite their staunch commitment to free markets and small government, understood that an absolute, unyielding adherence to pure capitalism could be self-defeating in the face of an existential international threat. The current conservative debate reflects a similar tension between ideology and perceived national necessity.