It’s tough to imagine, but there it is: Some conservative business leaders have no love for Donald Trump.
If you’d told me a few years ago that the consistently corporate Club for Growth would undertake a $1 million ad campaign against presidential candidate Trump, I would have laughed you off. But it’s increasingly obvious that Trump’s rise in the race for the Republican nomination has been forged with a populist message that is appealing to a vocal, and powerful, part of the party’s base. But his messages and his following are exposing a fissure in the GOP between the traditional Chamber of Commerce wing and the largely rural, socially conservative, populists. As this split becomes more evident, I believe Trump will be heavily attacked by American business and corporate interests as long as he is in the race.
{mosads}Never mind his newly announced economic plan, from which he predicted an earth-shaking 6 percent rate of growth. This is a case where the growers have no interest in whatever might come from the seed.
Setting aside the somewhat surreal nature of this clash, some history is called for: Populism is loosely defined as being conservative on social issues, strong on patriotism, protectionist on economics and sometimes liberal on reining in the power of corporations. While it has been an important movement in American political and economic history, populism has never brought enough support to govern nationally. One reason is that populism appeals to citizens in times when people are economically desperate, but it doesn’t capture the interest of enough voters to be thought of as the expression of a true base. The exception would be regional office holders, largely from rural or Rust Belt areas.
More importantly, populism often is in opposition to the needs and interests of American business. When populism begins to take hold, we can predict that business interests will step in to oppose it. Charles Lindblom, a great political scientist, talked about the privileged position of business in American government in his important book, Politics and Markets: The World’s Political Economic Systems. This privileged position exists, in part, because of the production of jobs and importance of economic development. That important value brings American business more access to governments through “repeat player” partnerships on economic development projects, privatization efforts like contracts to implement programs, and of course, the creation of access through money in the campaign process. The privileged position of business in government and business influence during campaigns doesn’t line up well with a populist firebrand. Business interests tout open markets, less regulation, a need for more and better employees in the workforce, and less discrimination against those who work for them and buy their products. These are things that a populist Trump and populists historically do not support.
Why does any of this matter for Trump in his run for president? Many of his positions — tough on immigration, tough on global capitalism, and the use of patriotism to attack some in society — do not stack up well against American business interests. It’s not hard to argue that a lot of what Trump calls for is bad for business: it eats into, and may eliminate, profits.
On immigration, for instance, American business relies on immigration for skilled and unskilled labor at a time when boomer retirements are making the recruitment of talent increasingly difficult. More generally speaking, Trump’s pronouncements are based in rolling back change: in societal demographics like the country’s growing population of Latinos, in the morphing of American families from the traditional two-parent household to more single parents and grandparents playing critical child-rearing roles, etc., and in the monumental shift in opinions on LGBTQ rights. These signals of a forward-looking, 21st-century America in a global marketplace do not fit neatly with the brand of social conservatism held dear by some populists. Global capitalism also means that protectionism is possibly less popular in today’s business world than ever before. Finally, Trump’s attacks on Wall Street and hedge fund managers is a direct assault on what some would claim are vital American business interests.
Imagine making these claims in 2002, 1992 or 1982, when “Trumpism” moved from corporate boardrooms into American living rooms. To many of us, Trump and American business always were absolutely simpatico: the “art of the deal,” the winner/loser dichotomy and so on.
Not anymore.
It turns out that American business interests don’t align well with the core message of Trump and many of his supporters. In fact, it’s true that populism has never really aligned well at all with American business. The important question now is whether a populist candidate who is topping the Republican polls can build out the big tent that Republicans strive for — and figure out how to include those conservative, status quo business people who have significant financial influence on the process. If Trump can do it? Wow, there’s some real art in that deal.
Hartley is dean of the College of Public Affairs at the University of Baltimore.