Can a freedom-centered tendency on the right make itself a genuine political force?

W ashington, D.C., is nervous. The unaccountable bureaucracy and bloated government that find a home there, and the public and private corruption that go along with them, face serious scrutiny and genuine antagonism for the first time in a while. There is immense potential for the returning of power unjustly centralized inside the Beltway and within the bowels of unelected administration back to the people and their representatives.

It is a moment made for, and in certain ways made possible by, freedom conservatism. This political tendency roots itself in the American Founding and has manifested, among other places, in the principles of National Review, the political career of Ronald Reagan, and the successes of Republicans in the Tea Party era and during Donald Trump’s first term.

In July 2023, it formally reintroduced itself under the freedom conservatism banner to remind the world that “individual liberty is essential to the moral and physical strength of the nation” — our nation, that is. I identified myself as a “FreeCon,” even though I was initially unsure whether the movement was necessary, or rose to the demands of the moment. The first FreeCon conference, held last week in now-nervous Washington, D.C., was a test of that. This first meeting showed the movement’s promise — and revealed the difficult tasks remaining before it.

A movement can get somewhere articulating only what it is against. But the purpose of this first gathering was to make clear what freedom conservatism is for. You won’t be surprised to learn that it stands for freedom. It is “our touchstone,” John Hood, president of the North Carolina based John William Pope Foundation and a leading FreeCon, told the assembled crowd. But this is not a completely abstract freedom. It is, rather, tied deeply to our nation. “American greatness requires American freedom,” Hood stressed. Nor is it without philosophical support: In addition to the Founders, Hood could justly invoke John Locke, Edmund Burke, Alexis de Tocqueville, Russell Kirk, and F. A. Hayek either as models, thinkers, or practitioners for the kind of conservatism he and others at the conference represented.

The first Freedom Conservatism conference demonstrated, moreover, that FreeCons do not hold themselves at some remove from the current politics. The attack on the bloated, centralized state that has marked the early portion of the second Trump administration is eminently compatible with, and enthusiastically cheered on by, freedom conservatism. As is the possibility of a serious strengthening of state and local governments. It was refreshing to hear Tony Woodlief, of the State Policy Network, state in a discussion of how best to restore federalism that “it’s possible states and localities actually do things better than the federal government.” FreeCons have a real answer to discontent about the size and scope of the state.

But freedom conservatism goes far beyond concerns, however just, about government power; or praise, however worthy, of individual liberty. Hood made clear that the freedom FreeCons value needs “other social institutions,” especially the family. The Freedom Conservatism Statement of Principles asserts that “most individuals are happiest in loving families.” Yet the family, in both its extended and nuclear forms, has deteriorated, to a large extent because of government policy, an unfortunate reality FreeCons seek to address.

Freedom, to FreeCons, also has a moral dimension. Our constitutional architecture does not just leave space for the practice of religion; it depends on such practice, and draws from America’s heritage thereof. As Mark Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, put it, “Freedom principles are largely Christian principles.” And America itself remains “overwhelmingly a spiritual project.” So it’s not surprising that Kay Cole James, former president of the Heritage Foundation, gave a shoutout to her Bible study group, members of which were among the crowd. Or that Carrie Sheffield, surveying the social and civic difficulties many Americans face, and arguing for a moral renewal, identified a straightforward answer: “The solution to all of this is God.”

FreeCons are fully cognizant of these challenges. Many of them worsened over the past four years, during which a Democratic president pushed a progressive, big government agenda at the same time that America faced so many other problems — “everything from affordability and economic opportunity to family breakdown, crumbling communities, drug addiction, and a dearth of healthy institutions steeped in the right set of values,” as Akash Chougule of Americans for Prosperity pointed out. FreeCons are grateful for the “free enterprise system,” which is the “foundation of prosperity,” as the FreeCon statement of principles put it. But that does not mean an embrace of the status quo in all its myriad defects.

So what remains for FreeCons to figure out? For one, how to secure recognizable political influence. Personalities come and go and are flawed while they last. Enthusiasm for reducing the size and scope of government undulates; one cannot assume it will endure in its latest iteration. There are many voters and politicians who believe in FreeCon principles and act on them (especially at the state level), even if they do not do so consciously. But to become a lasting part of the political landscape, FreeCons will need self-professed champions among voters and elected officials alike — in the states and in Washington. It will not be enough simply to meet with the substantial but thus far insufficient number of FreeCon signatories in conference rooms.

FreeCons are confident about America’s borders, which it has the “right to secure,” per the statement. But the picture gets a little hazier beyond them. Avik Roy, president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity and a leading FreeCon organizer, admitted that foreign policy is the source of the “most wide-ranging disagreements” among FreeCons. Representative Dan Crenshaw (R., Texas) argued at the conference that America’s prosperity depends on some degree of global preeminence, and argued that we “can’t whistle past the graveyard” and pretend that the Chinese Communist Party does not want to dislodge America’s position. But the FreeCon view that “Americans are safest and freest in a peaceful world, led by the United States, in which other nations uphold individual liberty and the sovereignty of their neighbors” is ambiguous enough to remain open to debate and interpretation. Eventually, a clearer vision will have to emerge. If nothing else, events will compel the creation of one.

Another immense challenge — perhaps the biggest — for FreeCons is to make freedom exciting, and to make advancing American freedom a rousing cause, even something of an adventure. Chougule argued that “no matter the strength of our ideas, limited government conservatism is not self-executing,” and that “it must be fought for, at the front doors and on the phone lines of the American people.” D.C.-centered, big-government projects, advanced by those on the left as well as by those on the right who would rather leave the Swamp undrained so long as they get to reside comfortably in it, fundamentally distrust the American people. To trust the American people requires being inspired by them, and to inspire them in turn, for the sake of the noble yet difficult task of self-government. This demands not just political suasion but moral exhortation.

Much of what I saw and heard at the first FreeCon conference dispelled my initial doubts about this project. If FreeCons can surmount these remaining challenges, most of my remaining doubts will dissipate as well. That work cannot only take place in Washington. FreeCons already appear to realize this. Though the first FreeCon conference was held there, it was “never our intention to center” freedom conservatism out of Washington, Hood said. Many attendees of this first conference came to it from out of town. If FreeCons succeed, then it may change a lot on their subsequent visits.