Most Americans probably think of freedom as rights conferred by natural law or the Constitution, such as free speech or religious liberty.
Mr. Walz means freedom in the sense of “positive rights,” which are government conferred benefits. This echoes FDR’s famous Four Freedoms that included the “freedom from want.” Government programs such as Social Security in this formulation are a guarantee of freedom—even if the taxes to pay for them limit the freedom of others.
Mr. Walz’s freedom from being shot is another example. He’s endorsing, in euphemistic fashion, the government’s use of coercion to take guns off the street. The individual right to bear arms is conferred explicitly in the Second Amendment, as reinforced in multiple Supreme Court opinions.
…..
The larger point is that Democrats in Chicago are hijacking the language of freedom, a bedrock American principle, to disguise their agenda of interjecting the government into every aspect of American life—from cradle to grave, from the garage to the kitchen.
They are defining freedom down, and if Republicans are half awake they’ll make that clear to the voters.
Against this background, why is this election even close? Some Republicans may say that it is because the media are on the side of the Democrats and suppress or distort the facts accordingly. Others may say that the universities have become indoctrination centers, promoting the kind of ideologies that favor the Democrats’ agenda.
But, even if we concede all that, the fact is that a similar situation existed back in the days when Ronald Reagan won two consecutive presidential elections by landslides. How did he do it?
He did it by addressing the voting public as if they were adults who could understand an issue—if you explained it to them in plain English, instead of in political jargon or snappy quips.
There are some Republicans today who seem to understand that. But they are not running in this year’s presidential election. Perhaps they may run in 2028. But there is such a thing as a country declining to the point of no return.
My intrepid Mercatus Center colleague, Veronique de Rugy, explains “what the Harris tax hikes would mean.” Here’s her conclusion:
Tim Walz may talk about “freedom” and keep shouting “Mind your own damn business!” — but if this comes to pass, there will be no economic freedom under a Harris-Walz administration.
Scott Lincicome is understandably dismayed by the state of today’s politics. Two slices:
This election season, however, has taken the economic silliness to a new level, not only bypassing presidential campaigns’ traditional approach to policy but actively misunderstanding and promoting policies almost universally disdained by economists on the left, right, and center.
…..
Several economic policies the candidates have individually championed are also terrible economics. With Trump, we naturally have to start with tariffs—not only because it’s in my policy wheelhouse but also because it’s one of the few things about which he’s been both vocal and consistent for decades. (Spoiler: He really likes ‘em.) He’s also, of course, been consistently wrong about how tariffs actually work, yet he insists on not just sticking to his past proposals but doubling down on them. Most recently, he upped his global tariff plan from 10 percent to as much as 20 percent, while going on an extended rant over the weekend about how only foreigners pay them.
The latter point, of course, is nonsense. As Erica York explained in her excellent tariff primer for Cato’s globalization project, U.S. importers are legally required to pay tariffs on any foreign goods that enter the country, and, while foreign exporters can theoretically lower their prices to offset those tariffs (in order to maintain market share), the more common result is that Americans—importers, middlemen, retailers, or end-consumers—end up footing the bill. For the tariffs Trump imposed, my Cato colleagues and I just posted the reams of evidence from a wide range of economists (14 studies in all) showing that this additional expense fell almost entirely on American companies and individuals, and that these costs—along with higher prices for U.S.-made goods, foreign retaliation, and related policy uncertainty—harmed the economy overall, including many American manufacturers.
Ryan Bourne makes clear that “anti-price-gouging laws entrench shortages.”
Robert Sterling’s X-thread on the consequences of Harris’s proposed price-controls on groceries is scary yet quite believable. (HT Todd Zywicki)
Andrew Stuttaford continues to document the successes – not! – of China’s industrial policies.
