Forty years ago, in 1986, Melvyn Krauss, a professor of economics at New York University and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, offered a lesson Americans would do well to revisit. In an article titled “No More Rich Bully,” he argued that the United States had spent too much time and too many resources containing communism, and too little spreading capitalism.
Krauss was writing about American foreign policy, but the distinction he drew offers a useful lesson for domestic politics today: fighting an opposing ideology is not the same as advancing your own. Today, Republicans seem far more committed to denouncing the rise of socialism than of actually promoting or fighting for capitalism. The supposed party of the free market has done little more than show lip service to it, and has failed to show Americans how it can improve their lives.
The question is not simply whether socialism should be rejected, but what Republicans and conservatives alike are doing to actually make the alternative worth embracing.
"The United States probably has spent too much time and too many resources containing communism, and too little time and resources spreading capitalism," Krauss wrote. "The marketplace is this country's strongest institution, and the United States must learn how to use it to help the poorer countries of the world develop a vested interest in the capitalistic system. Once capitalism spreads, communism will contain itself. The best way the United States can spread capitalism is through deeds, not words. The poor countries of the world already have had too many lectures from the richer nations about the benefits of free trade, and too few examples of it. Access to the vast American market is what these countries need—and should get—to build their allegiance to a capitalistic system. American protectionism is as subversive to U.S. security interests as Soviet cooperative forces."
Krauss’s argument does not map entirely onto today’s politics, but its central lesson is very applicable. The free market remains one of the United States’ strongest institutions, helping to drive American achievements in medicine, innovation, technology, and economic growth. And despite decades of federal and state infringement, it remains both the engine of the United States and a check on government power.
Recommended
His argument that once capitalism spreads, communism will contain itself also still carries weight. People do not necessarily support socialism for socialism’s sake. They support it when they are struggling, when the economic system seems unfair, and when getting ahead feels harder than it once did.
Defending economic freedom therefore requires more than warning against its alternatives. As President Reagan warned, freedom must be defended anew by every generation. Each new generation of Americans must commit to defending economic freedom alongside political freedom, and our commitment to both has too often faltered over the last quarter century.
And finally, we cannot just explain the benefits or superiority of free markets; we must demonstrate them. That does not mean pointing to Venezuela, then back to the United States, and triumphantly declaring that America is better. It means first acknowledging that America today falls well short of a free market, and then committing to building one through public policy.
This has not been the Republican Party’s strategy. Too often, its answer has been to shout “communist,” as though fear alone will win the day for free markets. Conservatives proclaim capitalism’s superiority while justifying restrictions on free trade, blaming corporations for economic problems, joining progressives in demonizing the rich, and defending government ownership stakes in private companies. They complain about greed, profits, and price gouging, all while insisting that theirs is the party of economic freedom. Their case for capitalism has amounted to little more than the argument that it is just better than the alternative.
That is not just embarrassing for the party of Ronald Reagan. It is a lapse in judgment, an abdication of responsibility, and a failure to defend the American principles of freedom, independence, and prosperity. It is a repudiation of what made conservatives conservative, and, unless corrected, it will mark the surrender of a political tradition that once understood its highest purpose was not to wield power but to preserve liberty.