The late journalist and political economist Jude Wanniski said that “the world is divided not into Communists or Capitalists, or Republicans and Democrats, or liberals and conservatives. It is divided into Populists and Elites, the ruled and the rulers.” It followed, Wanniski said, that “no philosopher king could possibly be a superior judge of the interests of the electorate than the electorate itself.” That electorate grows frustrated with the difficulties that dominate democratic politics, intensified by the backdrop of identity politics.

And the fury of identity politics, not to mention the gaping jaws of the federal government, makes paralysis in politics nearly inevitable. With so much power and control on the line, every election becomes existential. To be clear, the contest for protecting unborn human life and protecting children and the dignity of women from transgender ideology is inherently part of building a flourishing society. Corporations that go woke should not be aided by the state in any capacity and should be held accountable by consumers and shareholders for the decisions they make. But social conservatism should be paired with economic freedom.

If conservatives desire to get beyond outright losing or underperforming electorally, something they have done for the past three election cycles, then it’s time to recover the fundamentals of economic growth and its foundation in the dignity of the human person. We should look back to the foundation, ideas, and ethos of the supply-side revolution of the 1970s, which Wanniski did so much to explain to citizens across the country. This philosophy was pilloried by economists at the time as a misguided quest for tax cuts that would magically supply expanded government revenue. Tax cuts under the theory could do so, and at times did, given the prohibitive nature of high income taxes, which led to idleness and hidden income. That same labor and capital would enter the market, when it became profitable to do so. But the critics, then and now, ignore the real counterrevolution, one that went far beyond tax cuts.

>>> Defining Real Freedom and Prosperity

The success of the supply-side school reignited the moral and popular appeal of free markets, the dignity of work, energy abundance, national independence. It also did something most needful: It restored in individuals the belief that their freedom, their choices, and their work matter and should be rewarded. The focus returned to the acting human person, and to the behavior and psychology of persons who desire to improve their condition and flourish as independent persons.

This came after the dismal and defeatist 1970s, when leading economists and presidents told Americans to get used to inflation, a faltering economy, and reduced circumstances. President Jimmy Carter’s “Malaise Speech” in 1979 sounded false to American ears because it surrendered to an economic and bureaucratic technocracy that insisted on managing decline. Carter told us to wear sweaters early in his presidency to reduce energy consumption; now, we’re supposed to buy $80,000 electric vehicles.

The rebuttal to the desiccated Keynesian thinking that dominated the 1970s was provided by University of Chicago economists Robert Mundell and Art Laffer. They argued for a mix of tight money, low taxes, and a commonsense regulatory environment to increase the supply of goods and services available. The attractiveness of the American economy owing to this policy mix would lead to rivers of foreign investment that acted as another jolt to economic growth.

The supply-side philosophy, per Wanniski, argues that the electorate as a whole is wiser than those who would rule in its name. The people remain the best equipped to make their own economic decisions. Their irrepressible desires to better the conditions of their lives further explain the resiliency of the American economy despite the enormous weight placed on it by the state.

Considering that, in 2023, the federal, state, and local governments will probably spend approximately 36 percent of gross domestic product, we should marvel at the economy we do possess. Despite all the burdens placed on it, we still have an economy that exhibits technological growth, job opportunity, and upward mobility. This goes without mentioning the immense and unpredictable regulatory burden we face, one that now aims to make energy an expensive, precious privilege.

Many now argue that supporting policies geared toward economic growth by restoring economic freedom reflects an exhausted approach, that the political environment has moved on, that corporations are the enemy, and that markets have not functioned well for the working class. But we shouldn’t forget the upsurge in jobs, growth, and wealth that happened because of President Trump’s tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks, which benefited many in the working class. Unfortunately, COVID happened, and governments responded by restraining, if not attacking, the supply of goods, services, and labor. In many cases, retiring or not working became more profitable than work because of government transfer payments. We continue to live with the consequences of the COVID measures.

Ultimately, economic freedom is not limited to a particular moment in time and is etched in the human person’s capacity for work and achievement, along with the timeless insights provided by economic thinking into human action. Government policy can misdirect or restrict our desire to engage in voluntary trade, but the will to do so cannot be erased. Dismissing the significance of tax cuts and regulatory rollback for conservative politics and policy further ignores that they have provided the most trenchant means for combating the largesse of progressive policies, which slowly lead us into an undignified collective coma, dependent on entitlements rather than our brains and wills. If progressivism amounts to inclusivity and egalitarianism, then surely the supply-side approach provides the inclusivity of remunerative work available to everyone who wants it and the equality of economic freedom under the law. Our faculties, interests, training, and talents can lead us in our own direction, a script not written by Washington.

The current income-tax situation, we are told, no longer lends itself to the fundamental tax reforms of President Reagan’s administration. In 1981 and 1986, Reagan cut income and capital gains taxes across the board, reducing the total number of tax brackets to two, and lowering personal rates as high as 70 percent to 28 percent. One result was consistent 6 percent economic-growth rates through much of the 1980s.

>>> Stuck With Freedom, Stuck With Virtue

Dismissing economic growth and the policies that make it possible just doesn’t compute. The tax environment across all layers of government remains in crucial respects unfavorable to investment, growth, and work. Supply-side thinking stresses that all economic activity happens at the margin—i.e., what induces someone to work or to invest? A high “tax wedge” means that government interference in the economy reduces the incentives of sellers, laborers, investors, and consumers to participate fully in the economy. The tax on work leads to leisure instead of labor, tax shelters rather than capital investment. Entitlements flowing in excessive amounts, as they currently do, to the bottom two quintiles of income incentivizes unemployment, leading to diminished prospects for the real pursuit of happiness that comes from independence found in work.

When the tax wedge is high, e.g., a current 37 percent federal income-tax rate for the highest earners, plus the Medicare add-on tax on incomes over a certain threshold, plus state and local taxes, we reach a situation where the marginal rate is above 40 percent for high-income earners and approaching 50 percent if you live in certain high-tax blue states. Is there really no room for income-tax cuts that will provide growth?

What about the regulatory state and the costs it imposes on us? Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute estimated that the cost of federal rules surpasses $1.8 trillion—but this was in 2012. That is approximately the GDP of Canada and amounts to a sum of $14,768 per household. Regulatory relief as a precursor to economic prosperity is just as important as reducing taxes.

Progressives will surely demagogue this argument as tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, but they want us on their leash. Those days should end once and for all. We find the application of the supply-side policy mix in our strongest periods of sustained prosperity in the 20th century: 1922–1929, 1962–1968, and 1982–2000, with a mini-boomlet during part of the Trump presidency from his business- and income-tax cuts.

We must change the conversation. Enough talk about engineering the economy for equality, stability, worker outcomes, or community-building, which the state can’t provide without leading us into stasis. Let’s talk about eliciting individual initiative. As conservatives, we believe in freedom and the creativity that it unleashes, which spurs economic growth and opportunity throughout the economy. The economic victories of Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Trump are fully capable of providing the wisdom needed in a time such as this.