It all seemed so easy. Resolving the war in Ukraine upon Trump’s return to office—peace in Gaza and the return of all hostages. Manufacturing is sprouting up across the Rust Belt, providing a multitude of good-paying jobs, all protected by a solid tariff wall. Everyone at the rallies cheered for a new day. Well, Trump has been president for over 100 days, and it all seems like a distant memory.

If anything, the Ukraine war is even nastier, with Russia targeting civilians. While directing all sorts of pressure and humiliation toward Ukraine and its leadership, Trump, up to this point, refused to cause Russia any discomfort. Why does our president coddle an unfriendly power that is the aggressor? As I demonstrated in my post, “What’s Trump Thinking,” the notion that Russia would abandon its alliance with China is a fantasy. China isn’t about to allow a Russian defection to put the developing Arctic trade route in unfriendly hands. Putin knows that if he can’t subdue the much smaller Ukraine, he stands no chance against China. Trump seems unaware that Russia is China’s vassal state. He continues to treat Russia as a great power.

While retrieving some hostages, the war in Gaza rages on, with many still unaccounted for. A truce with the Houthis has allowed shipping to return to the Suez route, but Israel is still subject to attack.

As Iran closes in on becoming a nuclear power, Trump is in talks to trade sanctions relief for Iran putting off a nuclear weapon. This negotiation is similar to the Obama administration’s tactics. The pact they made with Iran resulted in that nation funding its pawns, Hamas, the Houthis, Bashar Assad, and Hezbollah. We all know how that turned out.

Trump’s industrial policy, centered on the use of high tariffs, has so far engendered much confusion, numerous paper promises, and little difference in Rust Belt manufacturing. Where the almost daily tariff changes lead is anyone’s guess.

What’s interesting about Trump’s efforts in these three areas is how they vary from conservative principles. Ronald Reagan had no problem identifying our enemies as the “Axis of Evil.” He supported friends and pushed enemies to the wall with a smile. Conservatives have since adhered to the same principles.

The bedrock for conservatives is allowing the marketplace to allocate resources to the greatest extent possible rather than relying on government industrial policies. Determining Winners and losers by competition rather than by government fiat. One can imagine the ire of Goldwater and Reagan toward subsidizing various businesses through direct payment, tax breaks, or tariff protection.

The other central Trump administration effort is the “one big beautiful bill.” Much of this legislation is just extending Trump’s first-term tax cuts, which conservatives, of course, applaud. They designed them. The problems lie with additions and what’s left out.

Lowering taxes on individuals and businesses, especially the latter, increases investment, which in turn leads to greater economic growth and higher government revenues, ultimately contributing to greater overall happiness. However, targeted tax reductions to specific groups, such as those earning tips only, can increase consumption and efforts to circumvent the system, i.e., shifting people from taxable wages to tips.

More importantly, significant changes have occurred since Trump’s first term in office. The massive COVID spending and “Green New Deal spending”have exploded our national debt. Added to the impending insolvency of our major mandatory programs, you have a situation crying out for significant spending cuts.

When faced with a similar prognosis for Social Security, Reagan overcame his dislike for the program to forge a solution with Democrats, keeping it solvent to this day. Creditworthiness goes with being conservative. The Democrats realized the program needed reforms to survive. They faced up to the problem.

In each of these circumstances, one can visualize the path that Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan would take —the conservative routes we’ve come to know. We’ve arrived at the fork in the road. The administration either decides to take the conservative path that served Trump so well in his first term or give in to those wishing us ill and turn to a government-directed economy, abandoning the market. Effectively adopting the progressive “Modern Monetary Theory” (MMT), which postulates that debt doesn’t matter because we owe it to ourselves. In any case, we can always print dollars to pay it off. I doubt if the bond market agrees.

Some already feel that we have taken the big-government, progressive route. The longtime Washington Post Columnist George Will, long associated with Reagan conservatism, tells us Trump’s MAGA movement is progressive. His latest column details this observation. I urge everyone to read it.

While I can’t refute Will’s conclusion, I keep hoping Trump will revert to what worked in his first term, a conservative economic policy, and appointing conservative “originalist’ judges. Unfortunately, his recent attacks on judges he appointed don’t bode well for this wish.

Backing our friends and punishing our enemies may restore international faith in the U.S.

In any case, with everything unfolding on battlefields, in Congress, and in the courts, when he chooses, Donald Trump will reveal who he is. Favoring our enemies while expanding the industrial state gives everybody a chance to see that the one thing he isn’t is a conservative.

Declared conservatives are the largest group in America, while Liberals, or as they’re known today, progressives, constitute, at best, less than a quarter of the population. Yet, if Trump continues on his current path, we will have both parties committed to progressive, government-directed economies here and abroad.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone if Trump proves he isn’t a conservative. Unlike his long-held positions on tariffs and immigration, he only agreed in 2016 to appoint judges presented by the conservative Federalist Society to gain conservative support. The same applies to his support for tax cuts and regulatory reform. He took conservative positions to gain the approval of various conservative groups and win the election. Now, back in the office with limited time, revering the liberal he was for decades makes sense, aligning with those who favor government direction from someone who sees himself as the world’s greatest director. Limited government and free markets may never have been a fit.

Still, one can hope the unpredictable Trump may suddenly swerve into the conservative lane and save his legacy and the nation. If not, people like me are back to the days before Barry Goldwater’s “Conscience of a Conservative,” without a party. We have no one representing us.