According to his bio in the Mandate for Leadership, Peter Navarro is credited with having a “PhD in economics from Harvard” and with being one of “only three senior White House officials to serve with Donald Trump from the 2016 campaign to the end of the President’s first term.” The bio also credits Navarro with being “the West Wing’s chief China hawk” who authored a book titled “The Coming China Wars (2006).”
The fact that Navarro is only one of three people to last through the entire Trump administration is worthy of comment. The Trump administration gained fame for having a revolving door, in which appointees came (with tweeted praise) and often left (with tweeted disparagement) not long after. This also led to many unfilled positions and appointments to “acting” rather than confirmed positions. Since The Mandate for Leadership consistently praises the Trump administration, it should not come as a surprise if, should Project 2025 come to pass, the next conservative administration emulates the mismanagement that was a hallmark of the Trump administration.
Navarro, unlike many other former members of the Trump administration, remained loyal to Trump and his prerogatives even to the point of going to jail.
As for Navarro’s hawkish position on China, this is in keeping with other parts of The Mandate for Leadership. For example, the chapter on the Department of Defense advocates for preparation for war with China, which, it should be noted, is a nuclear power. Other chapters consider China as a dangerous adversary in such realms as commerce and berate Democratic administrations for any perceived cooperation with China. (The Center for American Progress has an article devoted to Trump’s cooperation with China. So does PBS. And Forbes has one on Ivanka Trump.)
The Mandate for Leadership is generally consistent on many other issues besides hostility toward China. For example, climate denialism, opposition to any form of abortion, hostility toward LGBT rights, opposition to DEI, ESG, and CRT (and assigning them a much more baleful influence than they actually have), and a desire to break up federal agencies with an eye toward privatization or toward jurisdiction by the states, among other things.
Navarro’s contribution to The Mandate for Leadership is different. He pens one half of a debate with Kent Lassman regarding whether the next conservative administration should pursue a “fair trade” or “free trade” policy. (Navarro takes the side of fair trade.)
At issue are two competing conservative principles. One is the free trade argument, which holds that free markets are always to be favored. This laissez faire approach presumes that governments should have minimal power or influence over the workings of markets. This ideal would extend even to international trade.
In the realm of international markets, however, the free trade principle runs into conflict with another conservative ideal: nationalism. Under the nationalist principle, nations should be concerned with their sovereignty and security, even if that means the government’s imposing economic policies regarding trade. For example, in view of national defense interests, a nation should not outsource manufacturing, especially any manufacturing that has a defense application. This could hold true even if, for example, it could cost a business less to produce goods abroad and import them. Another national interest is not having trade deficits. The government just might take steps to regulate the market to avoid trade deficits. This is the fair-trade side.
Free trade advocates may invoke the dreaded “socialism” word when it comes to the government’s involvement in the market in the name of fair trade. On the other hand, fair trade advocates can accuse free trade advocates of naivete or undue idealism; a nation should look after its security, even if that means compromising on the free trade ideal.
For people less committed to either ideal, the debate may be resolved by some form of compromise. For example, the government could act to ensure that its defense manufacturing capability (which could involve heavy industry generally) remains within its borders while taking a more laissez faire approach with consumer goods.
Here is how The Mandate for Leadership puts it: “Kent Lassman and…Peter Navarro debate what an effective conservative trade policy would look like. Lassman argues that the best trade policy is a humble, limited-government approach that would encourage free trade with all nations….Navarro disagrees [and] writes, ‘Trade policy can and must play an essential role in an American manufacturing and defense industrial base renaissance.’”
The debate may be framed in comparison to China, which unabashedly pursues a policy of considerable government involvement in manufacturing and business generally. In view of this, Navarro offers this quote from the U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission: “The Chinese government is implementing a comprehensive, long-term industrial strategy to ensure its global dominance…. Beijing’s ultimate goal is for domestic companies to replace foreign companies as designers and manufacturers of key technology and products first at home, then abroad.” To address this challenge, the argument goes, the U.S. government should pursue its own industrial, manufacturing, and trade policy favoring domestic production and trade deficit reduction.
The obvious problem with such an approach is that it could lead to agreeing with and cooperating with Democrats who want to build up American industry in order to, along with enhancing national security, create working-class jobs. The horror!
Navarro, at least, has been so willing to maintain his credentials as a staunch partisan that he has gone to jail rather than cooperate. So, whether his fair-trade policy idea could ever lead to bipartisan legislation remains to be seen.
