In the tradition of classical liberalism, success—whether in business or in governance—should ultimately be judged by how well it serves the individual, not by how efficiently it props up institutions or satisfies bureaucratic metrics. A small but telling episode from my own life illustrates how far we’ve drifted from that principle.
I’ve been a loyal customer of Trump Winery for years. I genuinely like their wines, and when a friend in Florida was celebrating a birthday, I thought a dozen bottles from the winery would make a thoughtful gift. I placed the order and included a simple, precise request: deliver the gift on the day of my friend’s birthday (They provide a “Delivery Instruction field”). Not before. Not after. Just on that day.
Unfortunately, Trump Winery, working through Federal Express, ignored that request. The wine arrived a full week early—well before the intended celebration. I contacted customer service to raise the issue, expecting at least an apology or explanation. What I got instead was a shrug: “We can’t schedule deliveries for a specific day,” they told me.
Oddly enough, they had no problem enforcing the rule that someone over twenty-one must be present to receive the package. That part had to be strictly followed. But when it came to honoring a basic, time-sensitive customer request—something essential for the gift to have the intended emotional effect—they claimed helplessness. The customer was expected to comply with inflexible requirements, while the business felt no need to reciprocate with basic competence or care.
Alone, this might seem like a trivial complaint. But scaled up, it’s indicative of something more serious—a cultural and economic shift away from individual satisfaction and toward institutional convenience. We increasingly find ourselves in a system where companies and governments are built to serve themselves first and the individual second—if at all.
This inevitably brings us to Donald Trump. During his presidency, he promised to “fix” the U.S. economy, often portraying himself as a man who knows how business works and what customers want. Yet if Trump Winery—run by his son Eric—fails to meet something as elementary as a birthday delivery date, what does that say about the family’s commitment to customer experience? And more importantly, how can someone credibly claim to fix an economy for 330 million Americans when his own business can’t satisfy one?
This isn’t just about a wine order gone wrong. It speaks to a broader misconception in American economic policy today: the idea that national prosperity comes from strong institutions, from tariffs, from state-led strategies. In truth, lasting prosperity flows from satisfied individuals—citizens and customers who are free to choose, free to trade, and free to pursue happiness without interference from bureaucratic barriers or social-economic engineering. In other words, genuine economic growth emerges from policies and practices that place the individual first. Prosperous citizens naturally create vibrant economies and robust states, not the other way around.
Take, for example, Trump’s notorious tariff policies. These were pitched as patriotic tools to protect American industries and refill the Treasury. In reality, tariffs are taxes. They make goods more expensive, reduce consumer choice, and shift wealth from the public to politically favored producers and the government. Most economists—left, right, and center—agree that tariffs create more harm than good. They distort markets, punish consumers, and reward inefficiency. The supposed gains to the nation are abstract, while the losses to individuals are immediate and tangible.
The fundamental misalignment here reflects a broader critique of economic policy. True economic strength and prosperity emerge not from empowering states or corporate entities but from empowering individuals and enhancing their satisfaction. Citizens’ prosperity is foundational; state prosperity is merely a consequence, not the goal. This distinction is essential yet often overlooked in policy discussions.
History backs this up. Nations that prioritize the enrichment of the state over the prosperity of the individual inevitably suffer decline. From the Soviet Union to authoritarian regimes of the 20th century, the record is clear: centralized control and state-centric economics breed stagnation, not vitality. These systems might look strong on the outside, but they rot from within when people are disempowered, overtaxed, or ignored.
America was supposed to be different—a place where the individual came first. Yet the rise of bureaucratic red tape, protectionist policies, and top-down “solutions” suggests a dangerous drift away from those founding ideals. Trump’s presidency, for all its rhetoric about “America First,” often embraced economic nationalism over economic freedom. That’s a mistake.
If we truly want to fix the economy, we need to go back to basics. Policies should be built around individual satisfaction, not corporate convenience, not government control, and certainly not political spectacle. That means supporting competition, reducing red tape, and creating a marketplace where businesses are encouraged—and expected—to treat every customer like they matter.
Because they do.
My experience with Trump Winery might seem like a small footnote in the broader economic debate, but it’s illustrative of a fundamental truth: if a business can’t be bothered to care about its customer, it won’t survive in a truly free market. And if a politician can’t understand that, he has no business designing economic policy.
Real economic strength doesn’t begin in the halls of power. It begins at the front door—when a gift arrives on time, when a promise is kept, when a customer feels valued. That’s how you build trust. That’s how you build prosperity. And that’s how you build a nation worth believing in.
So, before we talk about fixing America, maybe we should ask: Can you fix the customer experience at your own winery? Because if you can’t get that right, how can we expect you to get anything else right?
