So far, some kind of standard Republicanism looks more likely. Trump doesn’t seem to enjoy policy detail and may defer to Congress. His tax plan is classic trickle-down economics, with a modest middle-class tax cut that would probably lift growth temporarily. His early appointments are mixed, variously nodding to the party establishment, wealthy businesspeople and white nationalists. They offer little indication of a conservative, working-class agenda to match his rhetoric.

Yet there are still two reasons to wonder if he will take steps away from traditional Republican economics.

First, not only has he suggested he would, but some of his advisers, like Stephen Moore, have said so explicitly. Moore recently told congressional Republicans that, as The Hill phrased it, they “should no longer think of themselves as belonging to the conservative party of Ronald Reagan,” but instead “to Trump’s populist working-class party.” That party, Moore explained, would need new positions on trade, immigration and infrastructure.

The second reason is that the outlines of a conservative, working-class agenda do exist, scattered among think tanks and publications. I’m skeptical that these ideas would do more good than, say, the Obama economic proposals that Congress has refused to pass. But the reformist conservative agenda is a vastly more serious attempt to address working-class stagnation than another trickle-down tax cut.

Reihan Salam of National Review has called for sharply reducing low-skilled legal immigration (and increasing high-skilled immigration) to reduce the competition for working-class jobs. Avik Roy, president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, advocates an overhaul of Obamacare that doesn’t require throwing millions of people off of health insurance. Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute is full of ideas to encourage work: less occupational licensing, a lower payroll tax, more apprenticeships, a disability system that no longer incentivizes idleness.

These proposals try to use a market-based philosophy to help working-class families — which is quite different from the recent Republican emphasis on comforting the comfortable. Presidents may not be able to directly control the economy’s growth rate, but they do have enormous influence on which groups benefit most from government policy.