One of the positions that conservatives pride themselves on most is their dedication to free markets. They extol the virtues of the free market in pamphlets and speeches, and they regularly denounce the idea of government control.

A recent post on Twitter/X from Nikki Haley, who came second behind Donald Trump in the 2024 Republican presidential primaries, gives a typical presentation:

As usual, @benshapiro has the courage to call out conspiracy theorists and antisemites. But it’s what he says next that matters just as much. We need an unapologetic defense of conservatism now more than ever—free markets, limited government, individual rights, and a strong…

— Nikki Haley (@NikkiHaley) December 19, 2025

Conservative commentator Gabriella Hoffman shared similar sentiments:

American conservatism has long been defined by free markets, limited government, individual liberty, and personal responsibility.

Any “conservative” ideology that ceases to embrace these values will resemble progressivism. We don’t need two progressive movements in the U.S. https://t.co/GIlbkOvK5r

— Gabriella Hoffman (@Gabby_Hoffman) November 12, 2025

Certainly, American conservatism has long been defined by the rhetoric of free markets. But a quick glance at conservative policy positions is all that is needed to call the sincerity of this rhetoric into question. Indeed, the policies conservatives advocate very often go against the free-market principles that they claim to hold.

Perhaps the most glaring example of this contradiction is the conservative position on free trade. Whereas the free-market tradition has always championed free trade going back to Adam Smith, conservatives have long believed that protectionism is a more preferable approach. Now, one might be willing to overlook this discrepancy if it were the only significant example. Perhaps there is something about the trade issue that makes it unique, and so conservatives can claim that they still believe in free markets for most things, just not this.

The problem is that trade is hardly the only issue where conservatives are decidedly against free markets.

Take farm subsidies. You never see conservative candidates campaigning against government assistance for farmers. Now, the merits and demerits of that policy can be debated, but the important question here is: will anyone seriously argue that farm subsidies are the free market position? Clearly, they are not. Thus, the conservatives who hold this view don’t seem to want a free market in agriculture.

Education is another example. A free market in education means the complete separation of school and state, where public schools cease to exist and private schools—operating with zero taxpayer money—are the norm. Conservatives have certainly championed greater choice in this area, and their zealous opposition to teachers’ unions is laudable. But they blush when asked whether they would go all the way and abolish public schools.

And what about consumer protection? Countless laws are on the books regulating drug testing, building construction, cars, and so on. Doctors need a government license to practice medicine; meat processing plants have to pass safety inspections. Ask any conservative about repealing these laws and they will look at you funny. “Are you crazy?” they will ask. “Of course we can’t just have a free-for-all for these things.” In other words, when you start asking about concrete policy questions, you realize that they find the idea of a free market in medicine, in construction etc. to be not only undesirable, but patently ridiculous.

Many other examples could be added. Most prominent conservatives want at least some government intervention in labor policy, monetary policy, transportation policy, and so on. And while they insist the government is far too large, most of them offer tremendous protest at the prospect of disbanding social security, significantly reducing the military budget, eliminating all government funding for scientific research, eliminating government statistical agencies, and on and on.

That’s a pretty weird disposition for a movement that gives so much lip service to free markets and their corollary, limited government.

A conservative might object that one doesn’t need to support zero government intervention to be a proponent of free markets. Sometimes, they might say, being a free marketer just means supporting minimal regulation—a light touch rather than a heavy hand.

Setting aside the fact that many of the conservative-endorsed interventions mentioned above go a fair bit farther than a light touch, the problem with this objection is that it tries to resolve the contradiction by twisting the definition of a free market.

I would submit that the proper definition of a “free market” is as simple as it sounds: a market free of any government restrictions. If you want a minimally regulated market, that is a perfectly understandable position. But let’s be clear, that is still a regulated market, that is, an unfree market.

Say a patient is taking a small dose of a certain medication. Would it be accurate to say they are not on medications? Of course not. You are either taking medications, or you aren’t. The fact that you happen to be taking a small dose does not mean you belong in the category of “not on any medications.”

Similarly, a person who has a few drinks every now and then may be considered a light drinker, but it would simply be a falsehood for them to go around calling themselves a teetotaler. The definition of teetotaler does not include people who drink occasionally. That word specifically designates people who never drink. Likewise, the proper definition of a free market, from the plain meaning of the words, does not include markets that have only a few interventionist regulations. The phrase specifically refers to markets that have no such regulations. Zero. Zip. Nada. A free market is not the same thing as a freer market.

Under this definition, the vast majority of self-described conservatives would have to be considered opponents of free markets. That they nevertheless present themselves as champions of free markets is concerning for a couple of reasons.

The first is simple integrity. If you are misrepresenting your ideas and principles, you are propagating what amounts to a lie. To be sure, I can understand why this is a tempting maneuver. The free-market brand has a good reputation, and aligning yourself with it will make many people see you in a positive light. But you don’t get to appropriate a label just because it sounds good if you don’t believe in the principles it represents. The title of “free market proponent” must be earned by actually being a free market proponent.

The second cause for concern is that inaccurate rhetoric leads to widespread confusion and misunderstanding. As Confucious said, “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.” When positions are misnamed, our political culture becomes degraded. This is especially true when the misidentification happens at such a large scale—hundreds of millions of people—and to such a large degree that the delta between the truth and the rhetoric is considerable.

In the face of our increasingly unhealthy political culture, people often ask themselves what they personally can do to help. Well, I would humbly suggest that one thing conservatives can do is to stop describing themselves and conservatism as favoring free markets. Political discourse will be much clearer and more honest if that rhetoric is left for those of us who actually want to set the market free.