The Stale Poundcake of Freedom Conservatism
A dispatch from the saddest room in Washington
I found my mind wandering repeatedly to Homer Simpson as the “Freedom Conservatives” soldiered dutifully through their conference agenda last week. This is surely the least inspiring panel conversation I’ve ever attended, I would think, and then remind myself—it’s the least inspiring panel conversation so far.
If there was a highlight, it was perhaps the “fireside chat” at lunch with Kay Coles James, president of the Heritage Foundation in the late 2010s, who had apparently intended to dish on that institution’s failings, but changed her mind once onstage. “How do you feel Heritage developed and evolved over that twelve-year period?” asked Avik Roy, the leader of the FreeCon movement, to which James responded, “I have the best poundcake recipe you have ever tasted, and I’m gonna make one for you, and send it to you.”
We were all there talking about poundcake, really. At least James had the courage to say so directly. The poundcake has a simple recipe from a bygone era. It’s not a recipe that generates much interest anymore. It’s not very good. Left sitting on the counter long enough, it goes stale. But if you don’t want to think too hard, and aren’t worried about making something your guests will find satisfying, anyone can still follow grandma’s recipe to make one.
The conference’s first panel, on “Expanding the FreeCon Coalition,” focused mainly on its shrinkage. The Institute on Religion and Democracy’s Mark Tooley lamented that Christian conservatives are becoming “more skeptical of freedom values” like free trade, while Kristen Soltis Anderson of Echelon Insights seemed genuinely concerned by polling that indicates 69% of Republicans believe the GOP is “the party of working people,” rather than entrepreneurs and business leaders. Daniel Garza of the LIBRE Initiative focused on the need to be the “champion” of “undocumented” immigrants and others who weren’t citizens.
All of which invites the question: what is a Freedom Conservative? During his opening remarks, Roy argued that “the only reason America is great is because we have conserved a tradition of individual and economic and political freedom.” Their 2023 declaration of principles essentially offers George W. Bush’s Republican Party. FreeCons support shipping production overseas, or “free trade with free people”; peace-through-strength internationalism, because “Americans are safest and freest in a peaceful world, led by the United States”; and unfettered corporate power, because “the free enterprise system is the foundation of prosperity.”
Lest one consider all that a lost cause, Roy offered the ringing defense that “there is no such thing as a lost cause.”
Brought onstage to answer, “What Can Freedom Conservatives Learn from Their Predecessors?”, columnists George Will and Jonah Goldberg offered the heartiest helpings of poundcake. What had gone wrong, what could be learned, what needed to change from 50 years of Old Guard Republicanism? Nothing, they agreed.
Criticisms of “pre-2015 conservative” decisions were empty attacks using “the nearest weapon at hand,” said Goldberg. The only potential mistake, “if any,” was embracing free trade with China, Goldberg continued. But China’s autocracy and global disruption were only the case “so far.” Maybe that’s why Homer Simpson was top of mind.
It was “not obvious [to me] that China won’t be moving in a liberal, democratic direction in thirty to forty years,” Goldberg went on, or even “three to five years.” Will chimed in that “I don’t think these were mistakes,” rejecting in particular the existence of the well-documented “China Shock.”
When Roy asked his guests to confront the “most compelling argument” of the “anti-freedom” New Right—that after the Cold War, the United States erred by committing too fully to free trade, leading to a breakdown in our economy as well as family and community life—both demurred. Will instead offered his “unified theory of politics,” while Goldberg noted that National Review ran many articles about families at the time.
The panel did offer one moment of clarity and a robust exchange of ideas when Goldberg observed of the audience, “there aren’t that many young people in here.” Roy countered that he spotted a few. This was the most contentious debate of the day.
After James politely declined to offer more than her poundcake recipe over lunch, and encouraged all to instead “wait for the book”—which rather defeated the point of speaking at the conference—Charles Murray, Kevin Corinth, and Carrie Sheffield joined Roy on stage to offer “A Pro-Liberty Agenda for Americans Left Behind.” Murray’s own helping of poundcake was the assertion that “there is no way out for the communities that are left behind,” which rather defeated the point of speaking about the “pro-liberty” approach to solving their problems. In any case, the issue afflicting those communities was “not enough freedom.” Lest one think this a controversial view, Sheffield, an author, assured the audience that it was in fact the only view, held universally by the civilized world at all times: “You aren’t going to regulate morality unless you’re the Taliban.”
But not all problems were hopeless, to hear the group tell it. What can be done, according to Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) in his remarks on foreign policy, is to “lead and control and protect the global economy.” With freedom, presumably. And also with “nation-building” in places like Afghanistan. This was difficult to follow, though the congressman did note that he had “flu brain real bad.” If only the Taliban would legalize online sports gambling, this circle might yet be squared.
At least they have DOGE. Or at least the Freedom Conservatives seem to think they do. Most political observers recognize the “Department of Government Efficiency,” led by Elon Musk and dedicated to wreaking Trumpian havoc across the federal government, as the antithesis of the sort of small-c, pre-Trump conservatism that George Will believes himself to be representing. But in this room, for this day, it was “The FreeCon Policy Engine,” according to the name of the DOGE-focused panel.
The seeming contradiction went unexamined, as the panelists—Brian Blase, Judge Glock, Dan Lips, OJ Oleka, and Tony Woodlief—hyped up the wrecking-ball approach as a fact-finding mission about how the government spends money.
The group appeared to struggle with what DOGE actually was. “I’m thinking about [DOGE] like it’s some kind of AI robot thing,” said Blase, a former Trump National Economic Council staffer. This of the government entity the FreeCon Con schedule described as having “brought incredible rigor and momentum to the cause of freer and more responsive government.” But DOGE is cutting things, and Freedom Conservatives are for cutting things, so FreeCon Policy Engine it is.
Speaking of cutting things, Freedom Conservatives like tax cuts too. The organizers wisely saved the best for last, as a dwindling audience came to life for “Pro-Growth Tax and Fiscal Reform.” Passing a budget that extended Trump’s tax cuts was “the most important thing Congress can do,” offered Americans for Prosperity’s Kurt Couchman. This should be conservatives’ top priority, argued John Hart of Open the Books, and we could “figure out the spending cuts later.” Tim Chapman, president of Mike Pence’s new organization, added, “Remember, we are the deep state.” Freedom Conservatives, in his telling, were embedded in important posts throughout government, and could at least throw sand in the gears of whatever democratically elected leaders might attempt. So maybe they don’t really have DOGE.
But they have tax cuts. Trump’s tax cuts.
Reached for comment, Roy rejected the suggestion that Freedom Conservatives might not dominate modern conservatism. “I strongly disagree with the claim that Freedom Conservatives don’t constitute a majority of the conservative movement today,” he said via email. “Both in terms of polling on key issues like taxes and regulation and inflation, and in terms of what Congress (TCJA renewal) and the White House (DOGE) are already doing, and what the bulk of mainstream conservative institutions stand for, Freedom Conservatives are, in my view, still the most important influence in conservative public policy.”
A day later, he added: “I would amend my response to your earlier question by adding that the Supreme Court and the Article III courts more broadly are also a bastion of Freedom Conservatism (e.g. the Dobbs, Loper Bright, and SFFA cases). In other words, Freedom Conservatism is an engine of major reforms and advances across all three branches of the federal government.”
Such optimism is admirable, and perhaps to be expected from someone who believes there is no such thing as a lost cause. But as FreeCon signatory and conference attendee Jack Butler of National Review observed, one major challenge for the movement is to “figure out … how to secure recognizable political influence.” He continued, “It will not be enough simply to meet with the substantial but thus far insufficient number of FreeCon signatories in conference rooms.” Some new recipes might help.