WASHINGTON — At the Russell Senate Office Building last Wednesday, four senators — Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR), Todd Young (R-IN), Marco Rubio (R-FL), and J.D. Vance (R-OH) — spoke about a fresh conservative approach to economics outlined in American Compass’s new policy handbook titled Rebuilding American Capitalism.

The philosophy, which I explored in depth last week, is unapologetically market-skeptical. The senators, along with the founder of American Compass, Oren Cass, threw jabs at the Wall Street Journal editorial board, talked about moving beyond free market “orthodoxy” in the Republican Party, and made clear their view that government intervention in the economy is entirely appropriate to orient it toward the national interest.

FOURTH OF JULY AIRFARE DOWN BY 27% FROM LAST YEAR

However, interestingly enough, there seemed to be a real gap between the senators’ strong rhetoric and the extent to which they actually embraced the proposals outlined in the policy handbook. The likely reason for it is at once relieving and worrisome.

It is not an understatement to label certain aspects of American Compass's new economic policy handbook as radical, at least insofar as it represents a significant departure from what has been traditionally thought of as the GOP’s platform. It endorses imposing an initial 10% global tariff aimed at “Eliminating the trade deficit” that will then be “adjusted automatically each year based on” the trade balance. Additionally, it recommends making it illegal to list a bachelor's degree as a requirement for private sector jobs and banning minors from posting pictures of themselves on social media. If that weren’t enough, the handbook also calls on elected leaders to “Make all jobs ones that Americans will do” by cutting low-skill immigration and even significantly reducing high-skilled immigration through H-1B visas.

But no time was spent discussing these particularly controversial proposals, despite their prominent place in the handbook.

Cotton sang high praises for American Compass and spoke about his American Workforce Act, which would provide vouchers for apprenticeships and job-training programs. That proposal is part of the handbook, but is also likely the easiest proposal for an establishment Republican to support.

Young started his speech by calling the handbook the “blueprint” for the future of conservatism. Yet, he later argued that we should make more Americans of high-skilled workers who want to come here legally — even though the handbook recommends the opposite. He also said he would be “uncomfortable” with 1) tariffs against China absent a united game plan with the European countries and Japan, and 2) significant subsidies and loans for goods that do not have to do with national security.

Rubio talked a strong game on reorienting economic incentives using government, but the most interventionist proposal he put forward was banning TikTok. Vance was likely the keenest on actual intervention out of the elected officials who spoke, but even he limited his remarks to financialization and the CHIPS Act.

So despite fully getting on board with the rhetoric and philosophy behind American Compass’s outlook, the senators acted as if its boldest proposals simply did not exist. There was no reference to a global tariff, despite it being the first policy listed in the entire handbook, to banning minors from social media, to restricting high-skill immigration, or to putting significant restrictions on private business.

There is a reason for it: None of the senators speaking at the event, let alone key figures in the Republican Party more generally, could possibly endorse any of those policies.

While this is reassuring, there is still reason for concern. The reason is simple: Those policy proposals are all logical conclusions of American Compass's philosophy. The common thread behind all of these more extreme proposals is that they aim to shift the rules of the game to achieve different social outcomes. In other words, they do precisely what the senators endorsed in theory. It may take some time for the ideas themselves to become mainstream, but the stage is set.

Those on the Right consistently point out that even those liberals who are more “moderate” often buy into similar premises as their progressive counterparts. As such, when push comes to shove, the “moderates” must cave.

Yet it would be a real issue if conservatives caved to the policies in the American Compass handbook.

When it comes to the tariff proposal, American Compass says its goal is to eliminate the trade deficit. Here's the problem: Trade deficits don’t tell us anything about the health of an economy. The United States had a real trade deficit starting in the Reagan years when its economy was booming. However, it had a trade surplus during the Great Depression. Today, the U.S. has a significant trade deficit while Venezuela, which is in total economic collapse, is enjoying a $5 billion trade surplus. The one time the U.S. trade deficit became less significant in recent years was during the Great Recession. The idea, then, that a significant, adjustable global tariff (read: tax) that has no ceiling whatsoever is urgently needed is unjustified.

A similar story applies to restricting high-skill immigration because all jobs should be “ones that Americans can do.” This is nice sloganeering, but it does not grapple with economic reality. The truth is that for every unemployed computer worker in the U.S., there are seven unfilled computer jobs. The takeaway is unmistakable: We do not have enough high-skilled workers here already. As such, high-skill immigration is necessary. If this proposal became law, how exactly would we solve the short-term shortage of computer workers? We couldn’t.

Likewise with prohibiting private businesses from requiring applicants to have a bachelor's degree and the proposal banning minors from posting on social media. I should note that the latter cannot in any way be justified by imprecisely lumping it into the same category as other restrictions we put on children for things that are inherently harmful such as smoking and drinking. Social media in excess is clearly a bad thing, but so are a million other things we allow children to do but trust parents to limit.

There may be particular American Compass policies on which a senator agrees. But that does not necessitate a complete philosophical shift that inevitably leads to imprudent policy decisions down the line. Conservatives should ultimately be both interested in, yet wary of, the change American Compass is trying to bring about.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Jack Elbaum is a summer 2023 Washington Examiner fellow.