In an NPR discussion about the deal struck by President-elect Trump with Carrier to keep a plant in Indiana, he says,
There’s plenty of talk that the reason Carrier went along with the deal was because they were afraid their parent company would lose a lot of defense contracts. So this now creates the specter of a president always being willing to punish or reward companies depending on whether or not they give him a good press release.
Why would progressives be inclined to agree with Cowen?
1. They hate Mr. Trump.
2. They do not agree that keeping this plant in Indiana served a compelling and long-standing public purpose. They might even understand that we have an economy in which free trade ultimately is what serves the public purpose.
3. They do not like the idea of businesses being offered carrots and sticks to do things to allow a president to score points with a constituency (“give him a good press release.”)
4. They do not like the idea of policy made in an ad hoc manner between the president and an individual firm, as opposed to policy that is embedded in legislation that affects all firms.
The trap here is that because of (1) progressives might start to reflect on (2) – (4).
Consider, for example, the Obama Administration’s mandate for contraception coverage in health insurance. This forced some businesses, such as Hobby Lobby, to offer contraception coverage when they did not want to do so. How did this differ from what Mr. Trump did to Carrier?
1. Progressives do not hate Obama. However, on reflection they would realize that this cannot be a defense of the contraception mandate.
2. Progressives believe that contraception coverage is important. However, if you took a vote, I bet that more people would prioritize “keeping jobs in America” than having contraception coverage in health insurance. It seems to me that the “compelling and long-standing public purpose” argument would be a stretch.
3. The contraception mandate certainly allowed the Democrats to score points with a constituency that they consider important. It was an important issue for feminists. So I do not think that you can find the difference between the contraception mandate and the Carrier deal here.
That leaves only (4). The contraception mandate was given to all health insurance providers under the Obama Administration’s interpretation of the Affordable Care Act. It represents the rule of law (ish) and not a one-off transaction. Even there, Donald Evans makes the counterpoint (in the same NPR discussion) that
I don’t think it’s a bad thing for the president to send the strong message to the workers of America that he’s going to create the environment for them to do well right here and – and send that same message to the corporations of America.
Mr. Evans seems to me to be saying that Mr. Trump will put generic policies in place that will pursue the goal of keeping plants in America. One can argue that the goal of this deal was not to set a precedent for one-off deals but instead to signal a forthcoming change in policies that will be administered under the rule of law.
As a libertarian, I do not believe that “keeping plants in America” should be a goal for public policy. I believe instead in patterns of sustainable specialization and trade, which includes making efficient use of labor and other resources from other countries. I also believe that contraception coverage is something that should be negotiated between individual households and health insurance providers. Maybe if progressives fall into the trap set by Tyler Cowen, a few of them will start to see where I am coming from in my point of view.