Walter Block vs. David Stockman, on Biden vs. Trump

Two of the most important economic thinkers of our day, Walter Block and David Stockman disagree on whether it is better or not for a Trump election victory over Joe Biden.

The difference in their views became public when Stockman penned an essay titled With Due Respect: A Commentary On Walter Block’s Damn Nonsense About Libertarian Voters.

Dr. Block responded here at Target Liberty, Stockman vs. Block: Walter Block Responds on the Value of Trump to Libertarians.

This prompted Tom Woods to set up a debate between Stockman and Block. He published the debate on Thanksgiving Day, "Ep. 1785 Debate: David Stockman v. Walter Block on Libertarian Electoral Strategy":

;

I want to discuss what I see as the central difference between them that was not made clear during the debate.

Block makes the point that Trump would be better than Biden in the White House.

Stockman argues that Trump is terrible.

Block then pulls out the argument that one should vote for the lesser of two evils. This is an extremely clever move that could only be made by a mind that fully understands the role of choices in making decisions but it distorts the debate. 

Block emphasizes during the debate that economists understand that in the real world economic actors must make decisions between alternatives that exist. He tells the joke of the economist who is asked, "How is your wife?" The economist answers, "Compared to what?'

Thus Block emphasizes the nature of choice and seemingly blocks (pun not intended) Stockman perspective. Stockman's reply is of the "But Trump is terrible" version.

But what Stockman should have done is pointed out that Block was distorting the framework of the question. That the question really is, Do we really want one of two pretty bad guys now with Trump leading the Republican Party into the future or do we take a third option. Let Biden win now, as terrible as he is, so that Trump is kicked to the curbside and the opportunity would exist for a Taft-like Republican Party to develop.

This would completely knock out Block's choices argument and move it to whether there is any possibility of a Taft-like Republican Party in the future.

I hasten to add that Block originally said of Stockman's viewpoint:

 I fear...Stockman [has] adopted "the worse the better" argument. 

But that is not Stockman's argument. His argument is, if I am reading him correctly, that we are not going to get better until we get rid of Trump. That Trump is the problem. 

Stockman is looking more long-term than Block, and though it did not come up in the debate, Block did mention it in his rebuttal:

[H]is view, if I understand it correctly, pertains to the longer run: if Trump loses, then “the Republican Party can be purged of Trumpian right-wing statism” and we can go back to the “Taftian religion.”

This is the essence of the debate. If we look at it from merely a Trump-Biden perspective, maybe Biden would be worse but we really don't know because Trump is so erratic and all over the place. Stockman correctly lays the current mad lockdowns at the feet of Trump and the early lockdown steps taken by Trump.

I'm with Stockman in the sense that the sooner Trump is no longer the guiding influence of the Republican Party the better. We do need to find a Taft-style Republican to fill the void.

This does not mean I am against the populous outrage that Trump has launched. Indeed, I have written:

 This is no time for halfway free market talk, it is a time to deliver the entire free market message. This is our time. This is our opportunity.

Trumpism needs to be turned into libertarianism. Indeed, the term Trumpism should be co-opted by us to mean free markets and liberty.

It is just that Trump that needs to be shown the door, not a Trumpism that we promote as favoring free markets and liberty. If we move the debate beyond just Biden-Trump for the upcoming term, the answer is clear. Trump has to go and we must find a new voice that is much more principled in support of free markets and liberty. 

-RW