One of my favorite statues in America's capital is 'Man Controlling Trade' by Michael Lantz, outside the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) building in Washington, DC.
FTC biographer Marc McClure wrote, "The horse, representing big business...symbolizes the federal government...which...forces the horse to submit its power to a useful purpose."
This symbolic depiction reflects New Deal-era aspirations for a powerful federal government. While modern interpretations may vary, they underscore the historical belief in the government's role as a regulator of industry.
How governments encourage or control commerce is endlessly fascinating to me.
This debate between encouragement and control plays out today in real-time.
This time, it is not just the New Dealers playing the leading role but a moxie collection of policymakers and elected officials from the political extremes shaping American Big Tech competition policy.
Strange bedfellows are no oddity in the political arena, but when a cause merges the energies of disparate ideological realms, it's a clear sign of a political sea change.
This shift is embodied by the improbable convergence of Lina Khan, the progressive chair of the FTC, with a burgeoning faction of Republican admirers.
These "Khanservatives," as they fancifully dub themselves, are rewriting the GOP's relationship with corporate America.
It's a fascinating political event. Youthful, fearless, and Trump-leaning Republicans are crossing the aisle to embrace the ideals of progressive enforcers like Khan. But make no mistake; this is no fleeting dalliance; it's a fundamental question about the American economy's structure and who controls it.
Does the US government want to encourage or control commerce?
Answering this question is not a matter of mere political expediency. Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL), who gave Khan a platform on his Newsmax program, crystallizes the sentiment with his blunt assertion: juggling the roles of corporate acolytes and champions of the working class is a tightrope act the GOP can no longer afford. There's a burgeoning recognition among Republicans that standing shoulder to shoulder with big business is a pact that has forsaken the American worker, diluted free speech, encouraged wokeness, and manufactured a liberal corporate hegemony at odds with their constituent's blue-collar, lunch pail values.
These grievances echo a broader conservative concern that paints multinational corporations as adversaries rather than allies. Such a turnabout has complex roots—a discontent within the younger conservative ranks that starkly contrasts with their predecessors' laissez-faire inclinations. Today's politics is for a more assertive government that tempers the excesses of unbridled markets and plants the populace's interests above the whims of corporate moguls.
Senator Marco Rubio's (R-FL) speaks of "pro-American capitalism" — which favors the common good over the interests of Wall Street — and Governor Ron DeSantis's (R-FL) selective targeting of companies like Walt Disney for acting too 'woke' for the voter's of his state, spotlight a crusade not just for economic recalibration but for reclamation of values deemed as essential and to define better what it means to be a "real American."
The Heritage Foundation throws its considerable conservative clout behind this thinking. As reflected in their Project 2025 manifesto, the foundation has seen a departure from laissez-faire commerce to a call for an aggressive reining of multinationals and Big Tech. Such thinking reflects an ideological realignment that heralds implications beyond mere corporate governance; it signals a re-envisioning of the American Dream itself—a new New Deal.
Navigating this convergence has its challenges. Progressives and the "Khanservatives" may indeed want big business controlled like Lantz's horse outside of the FTC building, albeit for divergent reasons—worker rights and corporate avarice stir progressives; conservatives lament cultural liberalism and increased wokeness.
As communication pros navigate this evolving political environment, the bipartisan tide against multinational corporations — an alliance that nods toward historical precedents where economic restructuring spurred unlikely cooperatives. And while the immediate battlegrounds may be the sprawling corners of Big Tech, the war is for nothing less than the soul of American capitalism, namely how governments encourage or control commerce.
This burgeoning anti-Big Tech alliance suggests that the question is not whether the current economic structure will change but how—and at what pace. The "conservatives" are more than a momentary political quirk; they may be harbingers of a new order, the architects of the next economic and political revolution.
While this collection of strange bedfellows may not reach its full political potential, its emergence reflects our times—an undercurrent of voters' desires for commerce that serves all.
As the political debate evolves, it challenges us to reimagine our expectations and renegotiations with commerce, raising a critical question: what form of capitalism do we desire for the future of America—and Americans?
Enjoy the ride + plan accordingly.
-Marc
