It’s not Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s fault that a last resort, no-holds-barred attack on a nominee of President Trump is known as a “full Kavanaugh” or the “Kavanaugh effect.” But the name has stuck. And now the tactic used against Kavanaugh has been unleashed against economist Stephen Moore, whom Trump has picked for a seat on the Federal Reserve board. As with Kavanaugh, Moore’s nomination is jeopardized by something that has little if anything to do with the post for which he’s been chosen.
Moore’s selection has prompted another elite-versus-populist fight, a common phenomenon in Trump’s Washington. The elites see themselves as members of an exclusive club. They’re economists with impressive academic titles, financial industry virtuosos, monetary policy “experts,” and members of the economic press corps.
Moore will never be invited to join their club. He’s an economic populist, a member of the supply-side school. He co-wrote the book Trumponomics with Art Laffer, the supply-side founder. He and Laffer regard tax cuts as the best way to maximize economic growth. Moore and Larry Kudlow advised Trump on his successful tax cut. Kudlow is now the president’s top economic adviser.
Federal Reserve nominees are routinely confirmed with no opposition and scant media attention. Monetary policy, which the Fed governs, is not politically sexy. But given Moore’s views, the elite group has made an exception in his case. And the press has fallen in line.
Moore’s qualifications have come under attack. He “demonstrably lacks either the experience or the expertise we would want in a central banker,” according to Matt O’Brien of the Washington Post.
That is partially true. Moore doesn’t fit their model of a Fed governor. He’s a disrupter, like Trump. That’s why the president likes him. And that’s why Moore is what the sluggish Federal Reserve needs most of all: a fresh voice who argues loudly for faster growth and thus better times in America.
But Moore is a “political operative,” not an economist, O’Brien’s Post colleague Catherine Rampell complained. “His policy choices appear to be determined by what’s best for his party, not what is best for the economy.” There’s no evidence for this jab. By steering Trump toward tax cuts, Moore was recommending what he himself has long believed to be the best stimulus to prosperity. It’s Supply-Side 101. Likewise, his fear a decade ago of a rise in inflation grew out of his economic rules of the road rather than a desire to harm the Obama presidency.
Moore’s prediction about inflation turned out to be wrong, as economists often are. Recall all those who predicted Trump’s tax policy would cause a recession, or worse. On the other hand, Moore was ahead of the pack in December when he denounced the Fed’s quarter-point interest rate hike as disastrous. Indeed it was. The stock market tanked. The Federal Reserve soon found itself in agreement with Moore’s analysis and canceled plans for more rate hikes this year.
The elitists’ biggest worry about Moore has a conspiratorial edge. Robert Samuelson, one of the Washington Post’s most respected columnists, wrote that “the real reason that Stephen Moore doesn’t belong on the Federal Reserve Board … is that, if confirmed by the Senate, he could become the Fed chairman — and that is a scary possibility.” Well, yes, he could.
All the complaints about Moore have failed to derail his nomination, and that’s where the Kavanaugh effect comes in. It consists of character assassination, not anything to do in Moore’s case with economics. The effect came close to keeping Kavanaugh from sitting on the Supreme Court. And it now threatens Moore.
The issue is Moore’s messy divorce in 2011. Court records from Fairfax County, Va., were obtained by the media. CNBC, among other media outlets, reported titillating and embarrassing parts in considerable detail. Moore came off poorly. At one point, a judge held him in contempt for falling behind in alimony and child support. Moore provided a statement to CNBC. “Our divorce was settled amicably many years ago and we remain on friendly terms to this day,” he said. His spokeswoman released a statement from his former wife Allison. She said they had “reconciled through our divorce many years ago and we would hope the media would respect our privacy.”
The president is sticking with Moore’s nomination. But there is a potential problem with the Senate, which Republicans control, 53-47. If enough senators quietly decide not to vote for Moore, the nomination could be withdrawn. Trump won’t give up easily. Nor will Moore.
Fred Barnes, a Washington Examiner senior columnist, was a founder and executive editor of the Weekly Standard.
