Recently, an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal by Robert Bork Jr. criticized new Attorney General Gale Slater regarding President Trump’s antitrust policies.
I still recall the disappointment I felt in 1987 when Judge Robert Bork, his father, faced a harsh confirmation process that ended in the Senate not nominating him for the Supreme Court. Sadly, it seems his son is experiencing something similar with Slater.
The essence of Trump’s approach to antitrust appears to focus on safeguarding markets from becoming too big to regulate, aiming to dismantle monopolies rather than allowing Washington to manage them.
Instead of addressing Slater’s actual record, Bork chose to lean on unsupported claims. He implied that her antitrust views could be simplified to “big is bad.” This isn’t accurate; she’s never said that, and suggesting it feels rather misleading.
The Trump administration’s antitrust team has indeed not backed down from fighting monopolies. On the contrary, it has taken a different approach compared to the last four years under Biden and the eight years during Obama’s presidency.
Misunderstanding Monopoly
Bork argues that Slater, along with the Federal Trade Commission Chairman, has overlooked consumer welfare standards. However, she hasn’t said anything of the sort. His accusations seem to misinterpret her stance; she has made it clear that she respects the original statutory meanings and precedents of the Supreme Court.
Bork also misrepresents Slater’s concerns about excessive control by tech platforms, laughing off her assertion that these companies affect not just prices but also commerce and communication in America. He claims that platforms like Facebook and Google don’t charge users significant amounts.
While Slater may not have fully articulated how these platforms may exploit conservative voices, her perspective is worth acknowledging. Bork’s refusal to recognize the issues faced by conservatives from monopolistic control is quite disappointing and perhaps shows a lack of insight.
I commend the Department of Justice for its willingness to confront monopolies, emphasizing that American citizens deserve protection regardless of whether it’s a financial cost or a matter of freedom.
A Break from Biden’s Policies
Labeling Slater’s policies as merely an extension of Biden’s antitrust approach feels like a mischaracterization. Slater has made clear her intent to offer a balanced and law-focused approach rather than an ideologically driven one. Biden’s FTC has often used antitrust laws to target transactions that genuinely pose no threat to consumers.
Bork points to a legal action against Visa as a necessary enforcement example. Yet, this doesn’t seem to have harmed consumers. It feels more like a strategy to empower private firms against conservatives, similar to tactics used with major banks and social media.
The Biden administration’s move to block a merger between Spirit and JetBlue led to detrimental outcomes, like bankruptcy, which clearly affected consumers negatively. If the Democrats had succeeded last November, there could have been expectations for political favors.
Yet, these were Biden’s choices, not Slater’s. She plans to correct the course by enforcing the law and honoring precedents, rather than using antitrust as a weapon.
In an interview earlier this year, Slater discussed giving economists a more substantial role in enforcement. She criticized regulations that stifle competition instead of fostering it.
This doesn’t sound like a radical agenda; rather, it reflects a hopeful return to rationality.
Deregulation vs. Control
So, why is Bork portraying her as tyrannical? Perhaps he misses the point that not all large businesses are adversaries of the government. Frequently, they collaborate to shape regulations that favor them while sidelining smaller competitors.
It’s often simpler for bureaucrats to deal with a few large companies instead of numerous agile startups, which isn’t true capitalism; it’s more like cartel behavior. Perhaps it’s time for some pushback.
Slater has highlighted that monopolies can not only impair competition but also threaten American freedoms. She observed how Big Tech remained silent during the 2020 election. Her answer? Don’t use antitrust laws merely to enlarge governmental needs.
This encapsulates Trump’s core antitrust generation: to dismantle monopolies so that markets remain accessible and manageable. It’s essentially deregulation achieved through preventative measures, which contradicts the notion of socialism. It aims to empower individuals rather than the government, echoing the founders’ vision, as noted in the 10th Amendment.
A Shift in Ideology
Mark Meador, a commissioner appointed by Trump, noted that “consumer welfare” transcends just low prices. It also entails shielding citizens from economic forces that suppress dissent and undermine democracy. That feels quite pertinent, doesn’t it?
Meador rightly dismisses the progressive view that “size” is always harmful, while also critiquing libertarian stances that overlook monopolies unless prices rise. True consumer welfare involves fair market practices alongside affordability.
The 2024 election symbolized more than a political win for Trump; it signified a seismic shift in what the Republican Party embodies.
Currently, Democrats appear to cater to Wall Street and huge tech companies, while Trump’s GOP champions working Americans—factories, small businesses, and local merchants.
Often, well-meaning, but perhaps outdated, Republicans shout about “socialism” when faced with corporate power challenges. However, they’re not defending capitalism; they are guarding the established order. Voters are beginning to see through it.
Trump was brought back to Washington not to engage with monopolistic entities or facilitate corporate mergers. His mission? To eradicate the swamp, including those backroom deals that maintain a monopolistic grip on government. If that makes traditionalists uneasy, they have the option to express their grievances elsewhere.
