The Bob Zadek Show

Early on in the Trump administration, the President tweeted, “I believe strongly in free trade but it also has to be FAIR TRADE.”

The free trade/fair trade distinction goes back to the 1980s, when then President Ronald Reagan’s free market advisers unsuccessfully plead with him to focus solely on the former. After all, they argued, free trade is fair trade. It’s fair to consumers and producers, while tariffs, quotas and other protectionist policies promote unfair business practices. Fair trade is usually just a euphemism for protecting uncompetitive domestic industries from foreign competition. Reagan understood this, but he also had the political savvy to signal loyalty to American companies, so the hybrid “free and fair trade” mantra stuck.

Stephen Moore, a former President of the Club for Growth and an economic advisor to President Trump, thinks we are seeing a repeat of the Reagan trade doctrine. While Trump may be threatening countries with draconian tariffs on their exports, Moore says that he is angling for “zero tariffs” behind the scenes. The tough talk is merely a bargaining tactic designed to get other countries, namely China, to reform their own protectionist economies in line with the free world.

We can hope that this is the case, but this and other questions remain about Trump’s actual commitment to free market policies. Also troubling is the seeming one-sided focus on tax cuts without any significant reductions in government spending. As Milton Friedman observed, “to spend is to tax” — if not now, then in the future. Basic economics dictates that expectations of future tax increases will eventually either depress consumer confidence, or translate into higher inflation.

Moore, whose free enterprise bonafides are second to none, has an answer to this as well. While there may not be such a thing as a “free lunch,” economically speaking, there have been situations in which reductions in tax rates have led to increases in overall revenue.

Arthur Laffer is credited with the idea of the “Laffer Curve,” showing the optimal rate of taxation that maximizes revenues — past a certain point, the disincentive from higher taxes starts to shrink the overall economic pie, and the government’s larger percentage ends up being a smaller total amount. Moore and Laffer have co-authored a new book titled Trumponomics: Inside the America First Plan to Revive Our Economy (available Oct. 30, 2018), which makes the case for “growing the pie” as the primary objective of economic policy.

While most economists said that 4% growth would be impossible after so many years of 0–2% growth under Obama, the recent data is proving otherwise. Moore co-founded the Committee to Unleash American Prosperity in 2015 with Laffer, Larry Kudlow, and Steve Forbes. They aimed to “persuade the presidential hopefuls in both parties to focus on the paramount challenge facing our country: slow growth and stagnant incomes.” Did the plan work? Perhaps, but it remains to be seen whether economic growth will be enough to pull the US out of debt (now standing at $21,606,948,383,546.28).

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

SUN. 9/23: AZ Supreme Court Justice and IJ founder Clint Bolick on

Grassroots Tyranny & the Limits of Federalism.

In designing the American Constitution, the Founding Fathers were careful to establish a balance of powers — not only among co-equal branches of federal government, but also among states, federal government, and the people themselves.

If the United States were a computer, then federalism would be its operating system. Extending the analogy, the most basic functions are performed by a “Central Governing Unit” (CGU) and strictly enumerated by Article I, Section VIII. The states were delegated the task of “programming” in the gaps — specialized “apps” to handle more localized issues. This design was supposed to serve as a bulwark against federal tyranny, although we’ve seen how the principles of federalism have been eroded by the commerce clause, and other broad powers usurped by federal government from the states.

On the flip side, states and local governments are not immune from the temptation to seize powers beyond their designated scope. The 10th amendment specifies that the powers not delegated to the Federal government are reserved to the states and to the people. The founders were clear in their writings that the ultimate authority rests in individuals. Both conservatives and liberals have ignored individual sovereignty in promoting a bastardized version of federalism. Conservatives have often championed discriminatory legislation based on “states rights,” while contemporary liberals support the power of state and local governments to regulate the economy and redistribute wealth.

Standing firm against this “local leviathan” are libertarians. The smallest minority on earth, Ayn Rand noted, is the individual. Sometimes the individual has to fight city hall all by himself, and the odds are stacked against him. Other times, however, groups like the Institute for Justice can take the government to court to defend their constitutional rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Before becoming an Arizona Supreme Court Justice, Hon. Clint Bolick co-founded the IJ, which has been featured many times on this show. Shortly after founding the IJ, Bolick authored a book titled Grassroots Tyranny: The Limits of Federalism (Cato Institute Press). In it, he cautioned proponents of decentralization that localizing power is no guarantee that it won’t be abused. It’s not all about empowering states, Bolick says — both states and federal government are merely devices that ultimately derive their powers from their protection of individual liberty.

While states and local governments can still serve as “laboratories of democracy,” these laboratories must never be allowed to violate inalienable rights, lest federalism — the “bulwark” of liberty — turn loose a thousand experiments in governance gone wrong.

Tune in for the full discussion between Bob and Clint on Grassroots Tyranny: The Limits of Federalism.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

*The Republican Workers Party* heralds the end of the left’s monopoly on

the inequality issue

According to F.H. Buckley — Foundation Professor at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law and frequent guest on the show of ideas — the surprise result of the 2016 election was a product of political paradox. An establishment candidate of a counterrevolutionary and aristocratic “New Class” was defeated by a revolutionary capitalist offering a path to social mobility. Forget labels like conservative and liberal — the real divide in American politics is between this New Class of privileged elites and the rest of America. In short, it was all about economic opportunity and jobs for Americans. Donald Trump saw this, while Hillary Clinton and the Republican establishment did not.

Buckley, a Trump speechwriter and key transition advisor, introduced the idea of the New Class in his last book, The Republic of Virtue: How We Tried to Ban Corruption, Failed, and What we Can Do About It (2017). He explained this class as an outgrowth of the Hamiltonian vision of American greatness, which defended hereditary aristocracy against the Jeffersonian ideal of a “natural aristocracy,” in which anyone with talent and motivation could become successful.

Thankfully, the Jeffersonian aristocracy has been the norm for much of U.S. history. American’s risk-loving attitude, combined with low taxes and regulation, has created the most economically-mobile nation ever. However, a creeping “administrative state” and growing risk aversion among professionals, academics, opinion leaders, and the politically-connected have replaced American dynamism with an entrenched economic elite shielded from competition.

Buckley’s latest book, The Republican Workers Party: How the Trump Victory Drove Everyone Crazy, and Why It Was Just What We Needed (Encounter Books, 2018), takes up where his last book left off — discussing the implications of the growing gulf between the average voter and the New Class. He argues that conservatives and libertarians should embrace a truth about inequality championed (poorly) by modern liberals and socialists like Bernie Sanders. The book is about how Trump bulldozed the tone-deaf republican establishment and created a new movement that he called the Republican Workers Party:

Frank joined Bob on Sunday (9/16) with his inside view on what “Make America Great Again” means. This includes a defense of nationalism rooted in a sense of fraternity with all fellow Americans. Whether you are riding the Trump train, remain a steadfast NeverTrumper, or are waiting to see what the President does next, The Republican Workers Party is required reading (or listening) for any student of politics. Sign up for weekly emails to get early access to the transcript when it is available.

Pre-empting a charge of hypocrisy, Professor Buckley is forthright in admitting to being a member of the New Class. However, he is not looking to defend his economic and social privilege. This privilege, he says, stems from a regulatory briar patch too thick for small businesses to navigate, a broken educational system that keeps the lower class trapped in poverty, and an immigration system that blocks out high-skilled competitors while allowing large influxes of low-skilled labor to undercut middle-class wages.

Some libertarians will find the book difficult to read. Buckley marshals survey data indicating that the political “sweet spot” in 2018 America is not socially liberal and economically conservative, but rather moderately socially conservative and economically liberal with respect to a social safety net. For example, Social Security and Medicare remain some of the most popular government programs on the book. In other words, we’re not all libertarians now.

The silver lining is that Trump’s vision of a workers party includes slashing regulations by as much as 70 percent, nominating judges in the mold of Antonin Scalia, and introducing greater choice and competition into our school system.

On trade, Trump looks particularly bad to libertarians. Buckley admits that Trump’s tariffs, and the worst-case scenario of a trade war with China, harm American workers. We can pray for the removal of Trump’s protectionist economic advisor Peter Navarro, who is the “source of all chaos” in the White House according to Bob Woodward’s new book, Fear.

Finally, Trump’s goal of immigration reform is often viewed as bigoted — a return to nationalism that offends those with New Class cosmopolitan sensibilities. Here, Professor Buckley’s Canadian-America citizenship gives him a particularly nuanced perspective. In short, he advocates something closer to the Canadian system of merit-based immigration. Carefully distinguishing between a healthy nationalism and unhealthy populism, he goes on to explain that solidarity with one’s fellow Americans can never be racist, given our diverse citizenry.

“National governments can demand too much and turn oppressive. So too can families. But that’s not an argument against the affection one naturally feels for one’s nation or one’s family.”

— Frank Buckley, *The Republican Workers Party*

While warning against the dangers of both excessive and ethnic nationalism, Buckley takes a bold stand for American cultural nationalism, which is ultimately a liberal nationalism. The Democrats, he says, have lost their commitment to the liberalism of the Founding fathers, which has always been about economic opportunity for all who are willing to work for it.

Tune in for a longer summary of Buckley’s book The Republican Workers Party.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

A psychology professor diagnoses the unhealthy mentality brewing on

America's college campuses

“This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”  — Thomas Jefferson, upon founding the University of Virginia.

A new vernacular has emerged on college campuses over the past several years — safe spaces, “microaggressions,” triggers warnings and so on. While conservatives may find these terms easy to mock, and many dismiss them as the grievances of a few spoiled children, professors from across the political spectrum have voiced concerns about a pathological victimhood mentality that underlies their usage.

The first sign that things were getting bad was a 2015 article published in Vox titled, “I’m a Liberal Professor, and My Liberal Students Terrify Me.” Next was the Halloween brouhaha at Yale, in which a professor was shouted down by a student mob after defending his wife’s email to the student body urging them to be less sensitive about costumes that “appropriate” the markers of certain cultures. Later came the mobs — often violent — calling for heads of figures like Charles Murray, Heather Mac Donald, and Milo Yiannopoulis for voicing controversial opinions.

It doesn’t take a sophisticated analyst to see that wearing a sombrero on Halloween is not comparable to physical violence. However, much of the criticism of the “special snowflakes” by the right has only thrown more fuel on the fire. It has created a vicious cycle, whereby the anti-free speech left sees the inflammatory language as further proof that certain voices must not be heard. Once that point is granted, it’s easy to continually shrink the boundaries of acceptable speech. While there are some who may wish to inflict emotional pain on over-sensitive college students, the vast majority of professors and guest speakers who have been silenced have had good intentions — namely to share their knowledge and opinions in an environment where the ideas can be challenged and discussed in the open.

NYU psychology professor Jonathan Haidt has attempted to give a platform for all truth-seekers with his Heterodox Academy — a group of academics dedicated to increasing “viewpoint diversity.” The platform functions as something of a “safe space” amid the increasing hostility to free exchange of ideas on campus. Haidt’s latest book The Coddling of the American Mind (co-authored with Greg Lukianoff of The FIRE) goes beyond the mockery and intentionally inflammatory speech directed at the small subset of college students who are most visibly outraged by political incorrectness. He applies principles of psychology to understand what drives the urge to suppress free speech and shows how this is precisely the wrong way for triggered young adults to handle their anxiety.

Equal parts pro-liberal philosophy and behavioral therapy, Haidt and Lukianoff’s book lays out the paradox of anxiety, and how our efforts to shield ourselves from negative ideas and emotions makes us less able to cope with them. They say that blame-seeking, or “vindictive protectiveness,” re-labels well-intentioned people as “aggressors,” and is having a disastrous effect on people’s mental health. They back it up with data, too, showing how the "iGeneration" now entering their college years is seeing skyrocketing rates of severe anxiety as a result of having been shielded by adults from real life.

A New York Times review of the book wonders if our cultural obsession with safety could spell the “Downfall of Democracy.” With stakes this high, we need more thinkers like Haidt — and more conversations that bring hard questions and ugly truths to the surface where they can be debated, studied, and understood by the next generation of politicians, professionals, and thought leaders.

JJonathan Haidt joined the show of ideas - not attitude - on Sunday (9/9) from 8–9am PACIFIC. He and Bob analyzed how well our top schools stack up to the Jeffersonian conception of the university as a place to fearlessly pursue the truth, and talk about how students can better prepare themselves mentally in this important quest.
Share the link with any students beginning their freshman year, or continuing in their education at a school where these issues are being worked out in real-time.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

The entire Supreme Court of West Virginia was just impeached. What does it

mean for the future of judicial selection?

Mal·ad·min·is·tra·tion — n. (formal) : inefficient or dishonest administration; mismanagement.
In 2006, while serving as a law clerk for the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, Allen H. Loughry authored a book titled, Don’t Buy Another Vote, I Won’t Pay for a Landslide: The Sordid And Continuing History of Political Corruption in West Virginia.

Six years later, he was elected by the people of West Virginia as a justice on the same court, and on January 1, 2017, he became Chief Justice.

On June 20, 2018, Loughry was impeached by the West Virginia House for mind-boggling corruption of his own. Today, he is “living history” — facing impeachment and up to 390 years in prison.

However, this was only the beginning of the truly continuing history of political corruption in West Virginia’s Supreme Court. What began with a revelation of Loughry’s excessive spending on an office remodel — including the purchase of a $32,000 couch — implicated all five of the standing members of the Mountain State’s highest court. Now, three of them face impeachment trials, while the other two resigned to avoid the ugly proceedings into their potentially criminal “maladministration.”

The majority of the charges revolve around lavish spending on their offices — partly a product of the lack of oversight on judicial budgets in West Virginia. Laurie Lin (@WVPundette), a columnist for West Virginia’s Charleston Gazette-Mail and former attorney, has been following the story carefully. Earlier this month, she recapped the depressing yet almost comical saga in a teleforum hosted by The Federalist Society, and fielded questions on the political implications of such a blatant abuse of power.

It’s easy to blame judicial elections for such widespread corruption. We know that voters are largely ignorant. Furthermore, elections could create incentives for judges to favor those who give to their campaigns. But in this case, the maladministration seems to have simply come from a unique culture of corruption within the courthouse — specifically around office expenditures. In addition to the infamous $32,000 sofa, one justice had renovated her office with a tacky Egyptian theme, meaning that her successor had to spend significant sums just to restore it to something normal. This quickly snowballed into a culture of personalizing offices to an absurd degree.

Now, Governor Jim Justice is replacing the justices who resigned with temporary appointees — both from his own party (Republican) — and Democrats in the House are calling foul play. While this story may seem beyond odd to outsiders of West Virginia politics, it comes as little surprise to the state’s residents. Wikipedia provides some helpful pretext for West Virginia’s political bizarro world:

“In 2015, Justice switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party and announced his candidacy for Governor in the 2016 election. He ran as a Democrat and defeated the Republican nominee, Bill Cole. Less than seven months after taking office, Justice switched back to the Republican Party the day after announcing his plans at a President Trump rally in the state.”
— Wikipedia page for Jim Justice
Soon enough, the voters of West Virginia will have a chance to elect new judges to the two to five vacant seats that will be left in the wake of the judicial crisis. They’ve already repealed the part of the constitution that enables the judiciary to get away with unaccountable spending on couches, Egyptian-themed offices, and the like. But a broader debate remains over the merits of electing judges versus appointing them, under a system sometimes known as merit selection.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.bobzadek.com/subscribe

The Accountable Capitalism Act would deliver neither accountability nor

capitalism.