A new mentality led by President Trump and adored by at least some it seems within the Grand Ole Party — many call it Republican populism — is drifting well past its definition, edging dangerously close to a socialist, central-planning philosophy once unthinkable for anyone calling themselves conservative.
Populism, broadly, is a political approach that claims to speak for “the common people” against “the elite” — those seen as holding power, wealth, or cultural influence.
But look around. What’s emerging in Washington — and increasingly in statehouses — goes well beyond populism.
The U.S. government now owns roughly 10 percent of Intel. Under President Trump, Washington poured nearly $9 billion into Intel through converted grants and cash, claiming “national security” concerns. The company wasn’t nearing full collapse — it just couldn’t keep pace with Nvidia and AMD.
Intel’s stock has dropped nearly 14% over five years, while Nvidia and AMD have soared tenfold and threefold, respectively. That’s business. That’s capitalism. Let Intel run its course. The company either raises its game to compete or dies. The government had no place intervening as it did. Will it pour more capital into Intel as Nvidia and AMD continue to win in the marketplace?
Yet Washington didn’t stop there. The federal government also holds stakes in:
- MP Materials (15%) – rare earths
- Lithium Americas Corp. (10%)
- Trilogy Metals (10%)
- A “golden share” in U.S. Steel Corporation
Again, the justification: national security. But these moves contradict the very private-market system that made America a superpower. Are we to conclude this new philosophy no longer believes American business is up to the job?
The government brings no innovation to these companies. Bureaucrats don’t create better chips, mine lithium more efficiently, or design stronger, less costly steel. But once Washington’s claws are sunk — even under the guise of “passive investment” — the path from capitalism to state control shortens quickly.
Defined plainly, socialism is an economic system in which the means of production — factories, land, and resources — are owned or heavily regulated by the state. Sound familiar?
And if you think it’s just a Washington problem, think again.
Here in West Virginia, Senator Brian Helton (R-Fayette) continues to champion a proposal mandating coal-fired power plants run 69 percent of the time — regardless of cost. He argues it will create 3,500 coal jobs.
In reality, it would force ratepayers to pay more for electricity in order to cover a now roughly $12 per-MWh gap between coal and cheaper natural gas, while jeopardizing existing jobs in the gas industry.
Previous Commentary: Debate is Healthy, Especially on Energy
That’s not market competition. That’s central planning and protectionism — government picking winners and losers, dictating production quotas, and asking citizens to pay more than they otherwise would for it.
So yes, even in West Virginia, we’re edging toward centralized economic planning disguised as “job creation.”
None of it sounds like capitalism to this old-school believer in markets. Maybe that makes me the outlier these days, and that’s fine, but it doesn’t make me wrong.
Hopefully those conservatives who still value capitalism will step in to curb anti-market momentum before it’s too late.