Conservative Industrial Policy and Consumption in the U.S.

The Trump administration’s industrial policy represents a branch of the broader conservative industrial policy framework. It reflects the expansion of conservative ideology, manifesting in both industrial and consumer sectors. As long as conservative ideology persists, industrial policies and consumption patterns driven by this ideological wave will continue to emerge, and the world will inevitably witness their rise.

Conservative industrial policy is a key component of de-globalization and is fueled by it. To fully grasp this perspective, one can adopt a historical realist lens and observe developments from the past to the present. In the early 20th century, the United States was among the first nations to implement mass production using interchangeable parts and coordinated production systems. World War II dramatically boosted manufacturing capacity while simultaneously crippling competing industrial powers. In the postwar period, a growing number of Americans entered the middle class, driving a surge in demand for durable goods such as cars and home appliances for newly built homes. During this era, the U.S. became the largest consumer of its own industrial output.

Many of these goods were considered high-tech at the time, such as dishwashers, televisions, and jet aircraft, to name a few, often born from wartime innovation. Meanwhile, the high school education movement that began in the early 20th century gave the U.S. the most educated labor force in the world, a factor that profoundly influenced consumer culture. By the 1950s, however, the dominance of manufacturing in the U.S. economy began to decline. As Americans became wealthier, more of their spending shifted to services such as travel, dining, and healthcare. Once people owned enough cars, they began to redirect their consumption toward experiences and services. This growing demand for services led to a parallel growth in service-sector employment, with more Americans working in hotels, banks, law firms, hospitals, and similar fields. From the mid-1960s through the early 1980s, manufacturing employment remained relatively stable, while service-sector employment steadily expanded. This marked the gradual shift from an industrial to a service-based economy in the U.S.

The onset of globalization compounded these changes. Not only did manufacturing increasingly move offshore, but incomes also declined for workers in both the manufacturing and service sectors. Many individuals slipped from the affluent class into the lower middle class or fell out of the middle class entirely into poverty. This economic dislocation fueled widespread dissatisfaction and skepticism about the “prosperity” globalization was supposed to deliver. In response, a de-globalization movement took shape. Many began to call for the return of manufacturing and the reestablishment of broadly distributed, high-paying jobs. At its heart, this represents a deeper yearning: the revival of the American middle class. The idea of “middle-class revival” has become a driving force behind the rising appeal of conservative ideology and it is no longer limited to traditional notions of manufacturing.

At present, the Trump administration’s conservative industrial policy remains ambiguous, marked by a coarse political presentation. It faces numerous obvious flaws and lacks a clear, coherent explanation, largely because the intellectual class does not support Trump. Without a persuasive and credible base of advocates, his policy has been left without serious interpretation or defense. In this vacuum, people have readily equated the return of manufacturing with the conservative goal of middle-class renewal. Numerous viral videos have dramatized this notion, including one AI-generated clip depicting obese Americans clumsily sewing jeans at sewing machines.

In reality, the return of manufacturing to the U.S. is possible, but it will not resemble the labor-intensive factories of the past. Instead, the future points toward high-tech manufacturing, driven by smart technologies and automation. What Trump truly fears is the development of such manufacturing capability in other nations, particularly China.

But can this kind of advanced manufacturing really help struggling populations in rural America?

The answer is yes, and the solution is relatively straightforward. It involves well-established tools employed by countries around the world: transfer payments, welfare programs, and investments in rural infrastructure. This model has proven effective, with success depending on sustainable implementation and adequate capital support. As long as a society has a strong and stable productive base, these problems can be resolved.

Another challenge is pricing. Conservative industrial policy inevitably results in price increases due to industrial restructuring. However, moderate price hikes are not necessarily problematic. In the U.S., inflation around 4% is generally manageable, provided income levels rise in parallel. In other words, robust economic growth is essential. For income to keep pace with inflation, full employment is key. When the labor market tightens, wages tend to rise across the board, and this becomes relatively easier to achieve. For Trump, the most direct route is to encourage the return of manufacturing while simultaneously restricting immigration. This creates labor shortages, making wage growth more likely. When paired with tax cuts, this approach becomes even more impactful.

The conservative mode of production is not cost-efficient. To accommodate higher production costs, consumer habits must evolve. In the U.S., a conservative consumption culture is beginning to take shape, and fashion trends are already reflecting this.  Even The Wall Street Journal’s fashion section has caught on, with headlines like: “Cool Guys ‘Love Grandpa Style'”.

This evolution is clearly unwelcome news for fast fashion brands. Companies like ZARA, Uniqlo, and SHEIN, built on rapid e-commerce sales, disposable trends, and short product cycles, are losing cultural relevance. In contrast, conservative consumer culture values longevity and the “old money aesthetic”. If this trend continues, fast fashion producers could face an existential crisis unless they reinvent themselves with durable, premium offerings. The traits of durability and higher prices serve a dual purpose: they accommodate inflation while also aligning with consumers’ shifting psychology. That is the subtlety of consumer culture; it adjusts not only to economic realities but also to evolving expectations.

At its core, conservative industrial policy is inseparable from conservative culture. It is both influenced and propelled by cultural dynamics. Its success relies heavily on a cultural foundation, specifically, a conservative consumer culture. Without that cultural support, such policy initiatives are unlikely to thrive.

In today’s America, conservative consumer culture is gaining momentum, which benefits the rollout of conservative industrial policy. However, cultural shifts take time. Culture is not created overnight; it is cultivated. As such, the Trump administration’s approach may still seem overly aggressive and could undergo correction or moderation. Nonetheless, the conservative industrial turn has already taken root and is arguably becoming a bipartisan consensus. Historically, even Democrats have supported protectionist measures. From Nancy Pelosi to Barack Obama to Bernie Sanders, many Democratic leaders have passionately advocated for increased tariffs and trade protections. Looking ahead, the U.S. is almost certain to continue moving in this direction. The speed may vary, but the course is unlikely to change.

Have you read?
The World’s Best Medical Schools.
The World’s Best Universities.
The World’s Best International High Schools.
The World’s Best Business Schools.
The World’s Best Fashion Schools.
The World’s Best Hospitality And Hotel Management Schools.