Right-wing populism is a strange bird, an ideology that's not grounded in any enduring economic or philosophical principles. It mainly entails using the government to address a variety of ill-formed social, nationalistic, and cultural grievances. Former British politician David Gauke was spot on when he says that populism amounts to little more than "a willingness by politicians to say what they think the public wants to hear."
That's why President-elect Donald Trump's recent appointments reflect a mish-mash of conflicting opinions. Many conservatives were, for instance, shocked by his selection of Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R–Ore.) as Labor Secretary given that her pro-union positions aren't different from those advocated by President Joe Biden.
In my last column, I pointed to MAGA Republicanism's embrace of the Nanny State, as reflected by the incoming administration's support for credit-card interest-rate caps. This week, I look at another area where there isn't a dime's worth of difference between conservative populism and democratic socialism. That policy involves antitrust enforcement.
The federal Department of Justice, which enforces federal antitrust laws, describes them as prohibitions on "anticompetitive conduct and mergers that deprive American consumers, taxpayers and workers of the benefits of competition." Progressives love antitrust enforcement because they dislike corporations and believe in the goodness of government power.
Conservatives traditionally supported freer markets or were reliably pro-business even if that meant providing them with special favors. MAGA populists, however, are committed to "protecting" the "working class." That makes them hostile to "elites" who run big business, especially tech companies dominated by social liberals in the Bay Area.
In fact, Trump announced this week that a former aide to Vice President-elect J.D. Vance, Gail Slater, will lead the DOJ's antitrust division. As the New York Post reported, the choice is "drawing praise from anti-monopoly advocates—who said it sent a strong signal Google and Apple will remain under significant pressure as blockbuster cases against them play out."
Trump will find himself involved in major antitrust cases pursued by the Biden administration. In fact, all of the most significant cases against Big Tech began as investigations and filings during his first administration. He is, as my R Street colleague and tech expert Josh Withrow notes, "merely taking back possession of the fruit from seedlings he planted. Biden was more than happy to nurture them to maturity."
These include lawsuits against Google alleging the company monopolizes internet search engines and digital advertising, and one against Apple alleging the company prevents competitors from selling apps on its smartphones. Antitrust zealots throw around the term "monopoly," but these aren't monopolies as the dictionary would describe them. Mainly, the feds are targeting companies for exerting market power.
The big news from last week is the Justice Department said that Google should divest itself of its Chrome browser to comply with the court's finding that the company exerted monopoly power in the search business. "Google's exclusionary conduct has, among other things, made Google the near-universal default for search and ensured that virtually all search access points route users' valuable queries and interaction data to Google," the government argued.
I don't find it particularly shocking that successful companies dominate some aspects of the internet marketplace. Other companies are free to develop their own search engines. I relied on Chrome for the research for this column because it's the best choice available. It costs me nothing to use it and I had other choices, so it's unclear how the government is protecting me. If the court follows DOJ's lead, it will likely make searching more convoluted and less secure.
As Google's chief legal officer explained in a blog post, the DOJ's filing represents "unprecedented government overreach" as the feds seek to, for instance, require "two separate choice screens before you could access Google Search on a Pixel phone you bought." Government bureaucrats, attorneys, and the courts shouldn't be dictating specific application designs, but to populists that's fine because, well, they're sticking it to Big Tech.
It's my hope that the Trump administration takes a more market-oriented approach toward antitrust law, but it's unlikely given the origin of the cases. And as Barron's reported in July, Vance said "absolutely" when a Fox News anchor asked him if Google should be broken up. "This is one of the most dangerous companies in the world," he added.
Dangerous? International drug cartels are dangerous. Google helps me conduct research and read stuff. Only a populist or progressive—someone trying to tap the resentments of voters or who has a visceral dislike of the private sector—could make such an overstatement. Then again, the incoming administration believes guacamole imports from Mexico and beer imports from Canada are a threat.
Antitrust laws are just government regulations on steroids. "Because of murky statutes and conflicting case law, companies never can be quite sure what constitutes permissible behavior," wrote the Cato Institute's Robert A. Levy. "Normal business practices—price discounts, product improvements, exclusive contracting—become violations of law. When they're not accused of monopoly price gouging for charging too much, companies are accused of predatory pricing for charging too little, or collusion for charging the same."
Those regulations might be popular, but supporters should at least spare us the claim that they support limited government.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
The post Is Trump Aiming To Continue Biden's Antitrust Insanity? appeared first on Reason.com.
