A year ago, Donald Trump addressed a collection of business magnates at the Economic Club of New York. He offered them a simple proposition: support him in championing ‘freedom’ in the imminent elections, or face the ‘communism’ purportedly embodied by his opponents. Their choice was clear, and the outcome favors liberty, as the Trump administration marches forward into a promising second term.
Under this energized leadership, governmental intervention within the private sector has taken an innovative turn. Notably, Silicon Valley’s giant, Intel, which was once an unrivaled force but is currently experiencing hard times, consented to offload 10% of its shares to the federal government. This unprecedented transaction is the most impactful state intervention since the Great Recession, outside times of crisis.
Proclaiming this change, President Trump stressed that Intel is only the beginning. His administration anticipates similar partnerships, shrugging off naysayers with the rejoinder: ‘It’s called business.’ Further solidifying this fresh approach, the President successfully negotiated agreements with Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, permitting these firms to vend advanced AI technology to China.
In these groundbreaking agreements, the chipmakers will remit 15% of the revenue generated from U.S. exports. Earlier in the year, the President positively sanctioned a deal permitting Japan’s Nippon Steel to acquire U.S. Steel. This acquisition included a ‘golden share,’ granting the federal government considerable authority over the corporation.
To critics quick to label this strategy as behavior warned against on the campaign trail, Trump reminded them of another non-traditional tool he frequently employed to the country’s advantage: tariffs. These tariffs, he pointed out, have reduced trade deficits, brought additional funds into the Treasury, and aided in resolving conflicts globally.
Leading the wave of this new industrial policy, President Trump has initiated a transformative change within not only the U.S. economy but also within the GOP’s long-established principles. This altered course has led to an unexpected consequence: role-reversal among the lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Democrats, once accusing Republicans of adopting socialist tendencies, now stare at the new reality.
A formerly unthinkable proposition, a Republican president fostering an environment supportive of the reorientation of private industry, is now reality. Recall the menacing ‘socialist medicine’ and government expansion that concerned conservatives during the Obama administration – the same forces that led to forming a Republican led Congress with a clarion call of ‘limited government.’
The administration’s critics include a few Republicans, who timidly question the new direction for fear of ruffling feathers. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul wonders aloud if partial Intel ownership isn’t a nod to socialism. His retiring colleague, North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, remarks that it ‘starts feeling like a semi state-owned enterprise à la CCCP.’
Former Vice President Mike Pence, too, expressed caution over the changes earlier this summer. He warned of the peril that comes with the government taking ownership stakes in businesses, like the ‘golden share’ in U.S. steel. Pence vouched for free enterprise as the American way.
Propelling forward, President Trump began his second term with a concentrated effort towards reducing bureaucracy. True to his promise of ‘American Carnage’, his administration has portrayed a readiness to experiment with direct federal investment where necessary, even as the voices cautioning a return to strict free-market principles remain vocal within the party.
On the right, the discourse often splits along two main lines. Some Republicans perceive the new reliance on federal intervention as a stabilizer, easing disruptions caused by rampant globalization and technological leaps. Others remain inclined towards a less interventionist approach, fearing too vast government involvement would worsen the situation.
Former deputy director of the domestic policy council during Trump’s first term, Paul Winfree, laments that the discussion lacks genuine intent for understanding and influencing. He observes that it’s filled more with rhetorical flourishes and misrepresentation of history than a deep-dive evaluation of methodology and implications.
Remarkably, there has been a surprising lack of public protest to these monumental changes. The anticipated deluge of dissenting voices and Tea Party demonstrations vehemently opposing the government’s size and scope has not materialized. Except for a few critical pieces by The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, the turmoil has been surprisingly quiet.
Winfree muses on the future of the conservative movement, wondering if the traditional alliance that once was its backbone is still in place. This silent acquiescence to change is indicative of a possible seismic shift in the conservative landscape. As he astutely points out, it’s no longer clear if the movement as it was known exists or has evolved into something entirely new.
In conclusion, Donald Trump’s passionate aim to breathe fresh life into American industries is creating reverberations that are shaking the country’s political and economic foundations. As we venture into this bold new era, the Trump administration continues its relentless pursuit of ‘freedom’ for American business, constantly redefining the contours of capitalist ideals with an audacious vision.
The post Trump Initiates Bold Vision: State-Private Partnerships appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
