Conservatives Against Capitalism
It's an older conservative position than you might think
In today’s WSJ, columnist William McGurn criticizes JD Vance’s attitude towards capitalism, which McGurn regards as representative of a shift in attitude by conservatives:
Vice President JD Vance would seem to have little in common with J.D. Rockefeller (1839-1937), once the wealthiest man in the world. But the two Republicans have in common a belief that capitalism doesn’t work for the American people. Mr. Vance has little faith in market competition, which Rockefeller called “a sin.” …
Where Mr. Buchanan in the 1990s railed against the North American Free Trade Agreement, Mr. Vance attacks free-market icons such as Milton Friedman. …
It’s telling that in his new book, “Communion,” … Mr. Vance says that while Friedman’s ideas might have worked “in a world where there are Christian guardrails on everything,” they are ill-suited for our more secular age.
McGurn goes on to opine that it’s “especially curious to find such critics of capitalism on the right.”
In fact, however, conservative skepticism of capitalism is nearly as old as both capitalism and conservatism. And, IMHO, Vance’s economic views fit into a traditions older than that of Pat Buchanan. I see him as trying (probably subconsciously) to create a blend of early 20th Century Teddy Roosevelt-style progressive Republicanism and the Southern Agrarian perspective.
FYI
I wrote about the conservative critique of capitalism in Book Review Essay: Conservatives Against Capitalism: From the Industrial Revolution to Globalization by Peter Kolozi (July 2, 2018), a version of which appeared in American Affairs.
As the title suggests, my essay reviewed Peter Kolozi’s book, Conservatives Against Capitalism: From the Industrial Revolution to Globalization (Amazon LINK).
McGurn’s column was a response to JD Vance’s chapter on economics in his book Communion: Finding My Way Back to Faith (AMAZON LINK).
Kolozi’s Thesis
Peter Kolozi’s Conservatives Against Capitalism challenges one of the central assumptions about modern American conservatism: that conservatives have always been enthusiastic champions of capitalism. His argument is that skepticism about capitalism has been a recurring feature of conservative thought rather than an aberration. Over the course of American history, many prominent conservative thinkers have worried that capitalism, for all of its economic virtues, can erode morality, weaken communities, undermine tradition, and destabilize society.
My Overall Reaction
Kolozi’s book is (at least, IMHO) a thoughtful, well-researched, and generally fair account of this neglected intellectual tradition. Although Kolozi writes from a progressive perspective, he treats his conservative subjects with respect and takes their arguments seriously.
Where I part company with him is over his explanation for why conservatives ultimately made their peace with capitalism. Kolozi argues that conservatives embraced capitalism because it reinforces hierarchy and inequality. I think the better explanation is far less ideological: conservatives accepted capitalism because, despite its many shortcomings, it has consistently proven to be the least imperfect economic system available.
The Rising Conservative Discontent with Capitalism
One of the questions that motivates both Kolozi’s book and my review is the apparent contradiction between the Republican Party’s longstanding celebration of capitalism and the growing unease many conservatives have expressed about it in recent decades. Republican platforms in both 1984 and 2016 praised entrepreneurial capitalism as the foundation of American prosperity and liberty. Yet by 2016, Republicans were also denouncing “crony capitalism”—the cozy relationship between politically connected corporations and government that distorts markets and rewards favoritism rather than competition.
The financial crisis of 2008 further exposed this tension. Polling showed that a surprisingly large number of conservatives had developed negative views of capitalism, particularly as they watched Wall Street receive government bailouts while ordinary Americans struggled. Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign amplified those concerns, channeling conservative frustration with globalization, multinational corporations, financial elites, and an increasingly disconnected political establishment.
Kolozi’s Explanation
Kolozi’s central insight is that these developments did not represent a dramatic break with conservative tradition. Rather, they revived themes that have appeared repeatedly throughout conservative intellectual history. On that point, I think he is exactly right. Modern observers often assume conservatism has always been synonymous with unqualified support for free markets, but the historical record is considerably more complicated.
Kolozi traces this tradition through six major schools of conservative thought. He begins with the antebellum Southern defenders of slavery, including John C. Calhoun, James Henry Hammond, and George Fitzhugh, before moving to Progressive Era conservatives such as Brooks Adams and Theodore Roosevelt. He then examines the Southern Agrarians, postwar traditionalists like Russell Kirk and Robert Nisbet, Reagan-era neoconservatives, and finally modern paleoconservatives such as Patrick Buchanan and Samuel Francis.
Further Reading
Russell Kirk’s Concise Guide to Conservatism (AMAZON LINK)
I’ll Take My Stand: The South and the Agrarian Tradition (AMAZON LINK)
John B. Judis, The Populist Explosion: How the Great Recession Transformed American and European Politics (AMAZON LINK)
Recurring Themes
1. Capitalism and Materialism
Perhaps the most persistent conservative complaint is that capitalism encourages materialism by reducing people to little more than economic actors motivated by self-interest. That concern appears again and again throughout the conservative tradition. It also appears to drive at least part of Vance’s thinking.
The antebellum Southern writers—in their efforts to defend the indefensible; i.e., slavery—argued that the Northern system of wage labor was itself exploitative and socially corrosive. While I obviously reject both their conclusions and their proposed alternative, they laid a foundation for future conservative thinkers to view industrial capitalism as a profound moral problem rather than simply an economic one.
The Southern Agrarians made a similar argument from a very different perspective. They believed work ought to contribute to human flourishing, not simply maximize efficiency or output. Industrial capitalism, in their view, displaced meaningful work, weakened communities, and produced alienation alongside economic growth.
Nor were these concerns confined to Southern thinkers. Theodore Roosevelt criticized the selfishness and excessive materialism that he believed accompanied modern capitalism. Later, Russell Kirk argued that economic life should be “humanized” rather than organized solely around profit maximization. His admiration for aspects of Catholic social teaching reflected his belief that markets should serve moral ends instead of overwhelming them.
2. Markets Need Moral Limits
Closely related is another recurring conservative theme: economics is important, but it cannot become society’s highest value.
Traditional conservatives generally defended private property and market exchange. What they rejected was the notion that every human relationship should be governed by market principles or that every good should be bought and sold.
Russell Kirk expressed this point particularly well. He argued that certain things—including pornography and illicit drugs—should not simply be treated as commodities because markets must remain subordinate to human dignity and the common good. Conservatives have long distinguished between economic liberty and moral permissiveness, insisting that a free economy still requires moral boundaries.
3. Capitalism’s Disruptive Effects
Many conservative thinkers also worried about capitalism’s tendency to disrupt established communities and social institutions.
John C. Calhoun believed capitalism fostered class conflict and social instability. Theodore Roosevelt feared that concentrated wealth undermined responsible civic leadership. The Southern Agrarians lamented the destruction of rural communities and traditional ways of life during the rapid industrialization of the early twentieth century. More recently, paleoconservatives have criticized globalization for weakening national identity, local communities, and long-standing cultural traditions.
These concerns point toward what I regard as one of capitalism’s central characteristics: what Joseph Schumpeter famously called “creative destruction.” Capitalism is extraordinarily innovative precisely because it constantly replaces old industries, firms, jobs, and even communities with new ones. That relentless process generates enormous prosperity over time, but it also produces continual disruption. It should therefore come as no surprise that conservatives, whose instincts generally favor continuity and stability, often view capitalism with considerable ambivalence.
4. Distrust of Big Business
One of the more surprising themes in Kolozi’s account is how frequently conservative thinkers criticized concentrated economic power. The familiar stereotype portrays conservatives as instinctive defenders of big business.
Indeed, that stereotype drives McGurn’s critique of Vance. But the historical record is considerably more complicated.
Teddy Roosevelt believed monopolies and excessive concentrations of economic power required restraint, to cite but one example. My hero Russell Kirk likewise criticized the rise of corporate oligopolies and never suggested that large corporations deserved automatic conservative support simply because they operated in a market economy.
Indeed, many of these thinkers distrusted both big government and big business at the same time. The Southern Agrarians feared that large corporations would inevitably capture an expanding administrative state, allowing each to reinforce the power of the other. Their preferred alternative was neither socialism nor corporate capitalism but a more decentralized economy built around smaller communities, local institutions, family farms, small businesses, and independent producers.
What About Free Market Libertarians?
Milton Friedman and fellow free-market economists provided empirical arguments for capitalism, while proposing innovative reforms such as school vouchers, volunteer armed forces, and the negative income tax.
But I’m not sure we should include libertarian/laissez-faire economics in the conservative tradition. To be sure, a broad tent, fusionist version of conservatism—such as that advocated by Frank Meyer has room for the Friedmanites. At the end of the day, however, as Russell Kirk puts it, libertarians "the chirping sectaries" and a coalition between Burkean conservatives and libertarians is "a union of ice and fire." (And we all saw how well that turned out in Westeros.)
Pragmatically, as McGurn complained, today’s populist conservatives favor restrictions on trade and immigration while supporting aspects of the welfare state that classical libertarians oppose. In contrast, Friedman-style libertarianism commands relatively little support among today’s conservative base.
Where is Vance?
Of the thinkers described above, I would argue that JD Vance is closest to the Southern Agrarians of the 1930s, albeit with some important qualifications.
Like the Southern Agrarians, Vance is deeply skeptical of an economy organized solely around efficiency, GDP growth, and consumer choice. Like them, Vance emphasizes the importance of family, community, stable work, local institutions, and the social costs of deindustrialization. But, unlike the Agrarians, however, he does not romanticize agriculture or oppose modern industry. He wants a manufacturing-based industrial economy, not a return to a rural republic.
Having said that, however, Vance takes some aspects of Teddy Roosevelt’s Progressive Republican thought. Vance shares Roosevelt’s economic nationalism, willingness to challenge large corporations, support for tariffs, and belief that government should shape markets in the national interest. Like Roosevelt, moreover, Vance rejects laissez-faire policies when they conflicts with national strength or the welfare of ordinary workers.
The Accommodation
Despite persistent criticism, nearly every conservative tradition eventually accepted capitalism. I think Vance does too and for much the same reasons.
Southern slaveholders opposed revolutionary attempts to overthrow market society. Roosevelt rejected socialism. Southern Agrarians accepted moderate industrialization despite their reservations. Cold War traditionalists gradually embraced democratic capitalism because opposition to communism united diverse conservative factions.
Even then, however, Russell Kirk continued advocating a middle course inspired by German economist Wilhelm Röpke that emphasized small businesses, family farms, artisans, cooperatives, and local communities rather than large corporations.
Why the Accommodation
Kolozi explains the accommodation by arguing that conservatism fundamentally seeks to preserve social hierarchy, making capitalism attractive because it reinforces inequality and allows dominant groups to maintain power.
I don’t buy it.
First, defenders of free markets argue that voluntary exchange benefits all participants rather than allowing one side simply to dominate another. The enormous improvements in global living standards over the past two centuries demonstrate capitalism’s productive capacity.
Second, conservatives generally value both order and social mobility. While they oppose revolutionary upheaval, they do not necessarily endorse rigid class systems.
Third, capitalism itself undermines hierarchy through creative destruction. Successful firms fail, new entrepreneurs emerge, industries disappear, and wealth constantly shifts. If preserving hierarchy were conservatism’s primary goal, capitalism would be an unusually unstable instrument for achieving it.
In my view, conservatives accepted capitalism because alternative economic systems—including socialism, communism, anarchy, and various utopian schemes—have consistently failed to deliver comparable prosperity and liberty. Capitalism survives because experience has repeatedly demonstrated its relative superiority.
The Failure of Conservative Alternatives
To the conservative mind the collectivism of socialism is abhorrent. Plus, as Michael Novak observed, major socialist nations, many of which were once net exporters of food, proved unable to feed themselves due to institutional and economic stagnation.
But what about the conservative alternatives to capitalism.
Only two conservative traditions seriously proposed comprehensive alternatives to capitalism:
Antebellum Southern slavery.
Southern Agrarian localism.
Both envisioned decentralized agricultural societies dominated by small farmers and artisans. And both are impractical and morally indefensible.
Slavery is ethically unacceptable. Full stop.
Southern Agrarian localism cannot realistically organize a modern industrial, technological, globally interconnected economy. Its nostalgic vision resembles Tolkien’s fictional Shire more than a workable twenty-first-century economy. Moreover, many Southern Agrarian ideas were intertwined with objectionable assumptions regarding race and class.
What About the Third Way?
The elusive "third way" between capitalism and socialism is not unlike the mythical Loch Ness Monster—frequently discussed but never convincingly demonstrated.
Improving Capitalism
I don’t deny that capitalism has serious shortcomings.
Income and wealth inequality have widened dramatically. Financial and technological elites have accumulated extraordinary wealth while many workers experience stagnant wages. Many forms of modern work have become increasingly dehumanizing. As far as I can tell, Vance agrees.
These economic developments contribute to social problems, including declining labor-force participation, substance abuse, and community decline. Economic displacement—not merely moral decline—helps explain many contemporary social pathologies.
My defense of capitalism is akin to Winston Churchill’s defense of democracy—it stinks, but it stinks less than all the other systems humans have tried.
So what we need is tinkering to make capitalism less odiferous. Instead of abandoning capitalism, conservatives should improve it by addressing crony capitalism, monopolistic behavior, and rent-seeking while preserving market dynamism.
In particular, and here I think Vance and Kirk would agree with me, markets require moral constraints. Religious ethics can help ensure markets serve human dignity, family life, and community rather than treating every aspect of life as a commercial transaction. In particular, conservatives should ponder Catholic social thought that, at its best, supports private property and markets while resisting the commodification of all human relationships.
Conclusion
Throughout American history, conservative thinkers repeatedly criticized capitalism for encouraging materialism, weakening communities, concentrating economic power, and undermining moral and cultural traditions. Nevertheless, those same conservatives generally concluded that capitalism remained preferable to available alternatives because it best combined prosperity with liberty.
Rather than abandoning capitalism, conservatives should recover older traditions emphasizing family, community, moral responsibility, meaningful work, decentralization, and religious ethics while preserving the productive strengths of market economies.
The future challenge is not choosing between capitalism and socialism but creating a version of capitalism that is economically dynamic, socially humane, morally grounded, and resistant to both corporate concentration and government favoritism. In my view, Kolozi’s historical survey provides valuable resources for that ongoing project, even if I ultimately rejects Kolozi explanation for why conservatives accommodated themselves to capitalism.