No. of Recommendations: 11
You're trying to make this political. I'm thinking about 2027 and a very belligerent China.
You can't separate them, though.
This is ultimately a political issue. Whether or not you support government policy to intervene in markets in order to ensure that certain industries are located in the United States is a "should" question, which involves political decisions.
It's easy to say that it's "unacceptable" for the U.S. to not be the location of any given industry, but that's very different from supporting the specific types of governmental policies that would be necessary to change that. Generally speaking, support for those policies lands more towards the left of the spectrum than the right. It's no accident that Freedom Caucus members like Jim Jordan and Andy Biggs and Chip Roy all denounced the very idea of the CHIPS Act - the core concept - as "crony capitalism" and opposed it. And that's probably the easiest example of this type of industrial policy: high-tech, highly-concentrated, and militarily important as well as economically important. But of the two bases, it was the progressive one that went all in on support, and the conservative one that opposed. Which is part of why this type of stuff doesn't happen in the U.S. enough to ameliorate your concerns - it took a Democratic trifecta to make it happen, because it matches up more with the progressive political philosophy than the conservative one.
Don't get me wrong - I would welcome if more conservatives would decide to support active and muscular governmental intervention in the economy if it is necessary to advance the collective interests of the nation, even if it requires spending a lot more government money. I just don't think there's as many takers on that side of the spectrum as you might think.
