We can’t turn our back on the free market if one thing happens that we don’t like. Although, I will admit that taking a free market public policy position can be harder than just agreeing with the mob that wants immediate reform. Allowing for markets to react, adapt, and compete can be unpopular, and relying on the free market can take time. Therefore, defending these types of policies requires preparation, consideration, and many times it also requires a thick skin.
If you are a public figure willing to make the right fight and you are asked about one of these issues, you can add ballet shoes to the skills required. Fortunately, attorney general nominee William Barr recently proved that prima ballerinas have nothing on him. During his Senate confirmation hearing, he deftly outmaneuvered a senator attempting to score points.
A current popular message among the pitch fork-carrying mob is that big tech is too big! They control our lives! They control everything! And, if you are a Republican, the next talking point is that they are biased. For instance, Barr was pushed at his confirmation hearing on this talking point, and then followed up with the Republican-specific talking point as well. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., asked Barr: “Do you think the Department of Justice has authority under the antitrust laws or consumer protection laws or other laws to address bias by dominant online platforms?”
The problem is that the question’s premise is wrong. A business might leverage their “market power” to profit, but there isn’t an economic advantage to leverage market power for ideology. A business’ one goal in life is to profit. This is an important premise because this is the foundation for pursuing a limited government that allows capitalism to raise everyone up. If there is distrust of large corporations, that distrust, when acted upon, causes a trickle-down regulatory burden. The smaller a company is, the larger the burden of that trickle-down effect.
Every tech company from Google to Amazon is fighting for its life every day. They fight each other over new users. They fight to maintain users. They are worried about other companies, big and small. Most importantly, they are worried about the small guy in the garage, or the dorm, who is going to come up with the next great idea. They’re disrupters who know how easy it would be for someone to disrupt them.
The small guy is the one who gets crushed when trickle-down regulations hit them.
So, how was Barr going to answer the question? He could have jumped on the rioters’ train and said, “Yes,” or more likely, “I will have to look into it, but something needs to be done.” Instead he sidestepped the issue and answered in the correct, although unpopular, direction. Barr told Hawley no, albeit in a very politically correct way:
Maybe in some alternate reality where Hawley didn’t hold the nominee’s future in his hand, Barr could have answered him frankly, somewhere along the lines of: “Attacking a business and claiming that it is running the business incorrectly is what led to Russians being amazed by our simplest of innovations. Attacking capitalism is how food lines became common in Venezuela.”
To engage Hawley at any level of debate would have been a losing proposition for Barr. To agree with Hawley would have been worse for the economy. So, Barr played the answer to perfection. He didn’t ridicule Hawley, he didn’t stand on a soapbox and make an example out of him, he didn’t give him a teenager’s sneer. He merely spun out of the question while smiling at the camera. Bravo, sir, bravo.
I wish that I could say that we are at a low in our nation’s history, that politics has just gotten out of control and nobody can have an honest debate anymore. However, this has always been the truth when it comes to politics. Politics is about winning, power, and votes — and that means populism will always play a role. But that doesn’t mean it’s always right.
Charles Sauer (@CharlesSauer) is a contributor to the Washington Examiners Beltway Confidential blog. He is president of the Market Institute and previously worked on Capitol Hill, for a governor, and for an academic think tank.
