The foundation of the current GOP is a deal between Reactionaries and PBPs wherein the latter get deregulation and regressive tax cuts and the former get support on social and cultural issues. For a variety of reasons, including the influence of Fox News, the establishment’s failure in Iraq, stagnant wages, the election of an African-American president, and some ringing defeats in the culture wars, the Reactionaries have become more militant, and are talking about renegotiating the deal. The discussion regarding industrial policy at the National Conservative conclave is the logical result of that process; some Reactionaries want to scrap the deal with business interests and impose economic ideas that are anathema to CLs and PBPs on the rest of the party.
Does the concept of a GOP completely dominated by the ideas of Reactionaries have a future? In the short run, probably not; inertia will most likely drive the party back to its Reaganite small government rhetoric once Trump is out of power, particularly if the next Democratic president is a left-wing populist. In addition, the GOP cannot win elections without votes and campaign contributions from business interests; notwithstanding what Trump thinks, Reactionaries are only a plurality within his own party, and a minority within the electorate as a whole. In the long run, however, it depends on how far left the Democrats move. Businessmen would object to the loss of influence within the GOP, but if they are presented with a stark choice between fascism and socialism, they will sit down, shut up, and provide votes for the former every time.
One thing is for certain: if the Democrats want to respond to “national conservatism” by creating a new label for their evolving populist ideology, it had better not be “national socialism.”