American Compass describes "conservative economics " as "the importance of family, community, and industry to the nation’s liberty and prosperity."

Except, this movement is not conservative — it is progressive. It is not about free markets; it is about European-style socialism. This philosophy of conservative economics looks to the state for solutions to real and imagined problems. It does not look to the person and the innate liberty each human possesses to make choices about consumption and the structure of his or her life.

By the plain words of the mission statement, the movement would deprive individuals, families, and communities of making personal choices about what goods and services to consume and how to live their lives. The movement’s leaders say they know what people should consume. The leaders of the movement say they know how people should live, and the leaders of the movement say their political ideology will foster domestic industry and innovation.

This "conservative economics" is progressivism and nothing more. The ideology is a downhill road to the relative poverty of the countries of Western Europe where per capita GDP is 30%-40% lower than the United States.

Conservative economics wants to create new entitlements for child support, expansion of Medicaid, and expansion of access to child care. The cost of the proposed new entitlements would exceed $3 trillion over a 10-year period. The U.S. already has a structural deficit of 5%-6% of the GDP. Because it is clear from the political rhetoric of Washington that neither Democrats nor Republicans are willing to tackle the third rail of American politics — reforming entitlements, Social Security, and Medicare — the U.S. cannot afford another massive entitlement program.

The Congressional Budget Office has explained in words and graphs that spending by the federal government is bankrupting the country and impoverishing our children. Sadly, "conservative economics" wants to transfer resources from the most productive parts of the economy — business, savers, and venture capitalists — to the less productive parts of the economy, those households which do not save and thus rely on income transfers.

The movement believes in industrial policy, and it believes in protectionism. The problem with this approach?

Government is not omniscient. Government cannot respond in real time. The market is not omniscient, but the market is democratic, and it responds in real time to changes in the public’s choices regarding consumption. The market is dynamic; the government is static. The market should determine winners and losers in the arena of competition and prices. Government, which is infested with the parasite of cronyism, does not allocate capital based on economic returns. Politicians are interested in votes, not capital returns.

The risks are clear. In 1930, Congress and then-President Herbert Hoover chose protectionism. Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which raised tariffs against imports. Other nations responded, a global trade war ensued, and the Great Depression deepened. Today, the Biden administration’s protectionist policies regarding manufacturing and inputs to the green economy are seeding the soil of the world economy for another global trade war.

The "conservative economics" movement would do the same. Protectionism ultimately makes the nation poorer.

Conservatism is about individual liberty and striving. It is not about surrendering choice to bureaucrats and increasing dependency on the government.

James Rogan is a former U.S. foreign service officer who later worked in finance and law for 30 years. He writes  a daily note  on finance and the economy, politics, sociology, and criminal justice.