[Salon] Intel and the Managerial State

For quite a while, I have been presenting an observation that even though Republicans are relatively to the right of Democrats, on the absolute political spectrum, both parties’ gradient of development is toward collectivism. This convergence implies that, from the perspective of individuals who prioritize personal and economic freedoms, the distinctions between the two major parties diminish significantly. Both have transcended the traditional political center, increasingly adopting policies emphasizing state intervention over individual autonomy. Often drawn from collectivist frameworks, such policies prioritize governmental control at the expense of free-market principles.

Recent developments under the Trump administration exemplify this shift, providing empirical support for the notion that even nominally conservative governance can veer into leftist territory. These events, occurring in August 2025, highlight how government actions can resemble those historically associated with collectivist regimes, such as partial nationalization and arbitrary regulatory interventions. One can clearly discern a pattern where the state assumes an outsized role, ostensibly for the benefit of business and consumers, but ultimately eroding individual liberties and market dynamics.

Consider the administration’s approach to economic policy. Proponents of limited government argue that the state should foster (but not intervene in) strong businesses and empowered individuals, creating a resilient society. The Trump administration, however, has pursued a strategy of fortifying state power directly, under the guise of supporting industry and the public. This inversion of priorities contradicts classical liberal ideals. Ideally, the government should abstain from micromanaging the economy, including interventions in free markets, trade relations, and competition. Such restraint allows organic growth through voluntary exchanges and innovation, free from bureaucratic oversight.

Yet, in a striking departure, President Trump, a former businessman turned politician, has embraced tactics from the generic leftist cookbooks. A prime illustration is the recent deal with Intel Corporation, where the administration secured approximately a 10% equity stake in the company. This arrangement, valued at around $8.9 billion, converts prior government grants into ownership, effectively granting the state a direct interest in a private firm’s operations. The genuine right-wing politician would abstain from both: giving away grants and involvement in business affairs. Trump has publicly doubled down on this approach, stating his intent to pursue similar deals “all day long” to maximize government gains. While framed as savvy dealmaking, this move represents partial nationalization: a hallmark of leftist policy.

Historically, privatization has been a right-wing strategy to reduce state involvement and enhance efficiency, as seen in reforms under leaders like Margaret Thatcher. In contrast, even in partial form, nationalization empowers the government to influence corporate decisions, potentially stifling innovation and competition. This precedent is perilous, as it paves the way for future administrations, including those with socialist leanings, to expand such interventions on a grander scale, citing Trump’s actions as justification. Trump has opened Pandora’s box, and we can just imagine the celebration that is taking place among Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Zohran Mamdani, Bernie Sanders, and others.

A parallel example from the same period underscores this collectivist inclination: the abrupt halt of the Revolution Wind offshore wind farm project. This initiative, approximately 80% complete and located off the coast of Rhode Island, was poised to deliver renewable energy to Connecticut and Rhode Island under established contracts. But the Trump administration issued a stop-work order on August 22, 2025, citing national security concerns. Developer Ørsted, a Danish firm, had invested heavily, with the project expected to become operational in 2026 and supply power to hundreds of thousands of homes. The decision disrupted ongoing construction, affecting contracts with customers and suppliers who had agreed on prices, terms, and timelines.

Further scrutiny reveals that the cited rationale may mask personal or ideological biases. Reports indicate that the shutdown stems partly from President Trump’s expressed disdain for alternative energy sources, particularly wind power, which he has criticized as unreliable and aesthetically displeasing. Lee Zeldin, a former congressman and EPA Administrator, reportedly echoed this sentiment when questioned, emphasizing Trump’s displeasure as a key factor. This intervention exemplifies paternalistic governance, where the state positions itself as the ultimate arbiter of what benefits consumers, overriding private agreements and market choices.

In a true capitalist system, such decisions would rest with businesses and individuals, not bureaucratic whims. Instead, this action mirrors leftist regimes’ tendency to centralize control, dictating economic outcomes based on ideological preferences rather than efficiency or demand.

The implications extend beyond these incidents. Both parties’ drift toward collectivism is evident in broader patterns. Democrats have long advocated for expansive social programs and regulations, emphasizing collective welfare over individual rights. Republicans, traditionally champions of individualism, increasingly endorse protectionist tariffs, industrial subsidies, and state-directed investments: policies that concentrate power in government hands. This bipartisan convergence erodes the political center and the political right, leaving advocates of genuine freedom marginalized.

The advocates of personal and economic freedom possess limited power and resources to halt a ship bound for catastrophe. At least we will endure in the annals of history as those who comprehended the peril and alerted others to the impending threat.