Conservatism and Trumpism are no Laffing matter
Dr. Arthur Laffer’s lecture for Young Americans for Freedom promotes classist ideas
Dr. Arthur Laffer speaks on campus at a Young Americans for Freedom event.
February 16, 2023
Welcome to Ronald Reagan’s America: where trade is free, income tax is low and patriotism is strong.
At least, that is the version of America that economist Dr. Arthur Laffer passionately endorsed on Feb. 8 during his lecture titled, “Taxing the Rich has its Consequences,” sponsored by Wake Forest University’s chapter of Young Americans for Freedom (YAF).
Standing beside a large red, white and blue YAF banner, Laffer spoke of his glory days working under former President Ronald Reagan to an audience of students and faculty. What initially seemed like a lecture merely describing economic trends throughout history soon turned into a conservative sermon that left me wondering whether or not I had accidentally stumbled into a Trump rally.
“Look at it this way. If you tax people who work and pay people who don’t work…” Laffer said with a knowing smile, gesturing to the audience who all nodded in agreement. “Well, you see what I’m saying here.”
Laffer went on to condemn the redistribution of income from those who make an excess of the average income to those who make less than average, saying that in his model, this would create a “net zero” income across America.
It doesn’t take a background in economics to read between the lines: Laffer was calling the working class a bunch of freeloaders.
Unlike former President Donald Trump, however, Laffer didn’t need to appeal to working-class Americans to earn their approval. After all, he was in a room full of mostly affluent and well-off individuals, many of which he knew already shared his perspective.
Trump, whose administration is known for giving massive tax cuts to the rich in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017, was advised by Laffer and incorporated his approach to taxation into U.S. policy. Laffer, who was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Trump in 2019 and advised him on the COVID-19 economic crisis response, gave a clear nod to Trump’s 2024 campaign by criticizing the current administration’s approach to taxes as stated in the latest State of the Union address. After having listened to Laffer speak, it is clear the influence he had on Trump’s economic plans during his campaign.
“I wish Bernie [Sanders], Elizabeth Warren, even Joe Biden were here tonight. If they were, I’d tell them, ‘it’s not about feelings,’” Laffer said at one point during the evening, a statement eerily similar to the rhetoric of Trump.
Young America’s Foundation, the organization that charters college chapters of YAF, has Laffer as one of its many speakers from which chapters can choose to give lectures. Other potential speakers from the list include former Vice President Mike Pence, Trump 2016 campaign manager Kellyanne Conway and other prominent conservative figures.
YAF proclaims its ties to Reagan; however, its ties to Trump are just as evident.
A student asked Laffer a question during the Q&A portion of the lecture concerning his thoughts on students’ initiative in today’s polarized political climate. Laffer redirected the question to showcase his research on economic trends, choosing to take this opportunity to comment on trade policies in the United States.
“This might be controversial, but we need to start trading with Russia, China and Iran,” Laffer said, receiving head nods and thumbs-ups from the older members of the audience.
I couldn’t help but shake my head — a timely comment, considering that Russia is actively committing atrocities against Ukraine, to whom the United States has sent billions in aid. Other countries that are part of NATO have done the same but have hesitated to supply heavy-duty military aid out of fear to escalate the war further. Laffer’s suggestion completely undermines the efforts the United States and NATO countries have made to support Ukraine and would weaken the unity that the NATO countries have demonstrated since last February. Additionally, following the four Chinese spy balloons that were sent to collect military data from the United States and were shot down as well as the canceled diplomatic meeting that was supposed to take place in Beijing, tensions with China are increasing by the day. Still, his suggestions seemed to appeal to the audience, making me wonder whether anyone pays attention to world events.
Clearly, I was not the intended audience for Laffer’s talk. If I had been, this would have likely been a positive review instead of a criticism. One thing that is worth noting is that as adults we are constantly receiving new information that shapes our opinions and beliefs. As a politics and international affairs major, I have formed my opinions about matters and issues that the world is facing today — there was very little that I found myself agreeing with during Laffer’s talk.
There is value in hearing different perspectives, particularly when it’s coming from someone like Laffer who has experience in his field. However, understanding his biases and background is necessary so as to not take his research at face value. The models Laffer used have been criticized by other experts, while his rhetoric during the talk implied that what he was saying was all factual. I can appreciate hearing a viewpoint different from mine on a topic that I don’t have much knowledge about, but I have learned to be wary of misinformation. Doing some fact-checking after Laffer’s talk confirmed my suspicions, which were that his models were not as sound as he made them out to be. We all need to become more politically literate so we can discern what is fact, rather than simply accepting what we hear from figures like Laffer.
Will Ezzell • Feb 22, 2023 at 11:44 pm
Anna, I love that you are contributing to the discussion of tax policy, as I feel that this is a very important issue that is not discussed enough. That being said, your article largely lacks discussion of actual tax policy, and is instead an emotional political attack that is almost entirely irrelevant to the content of Dr. Laffer’s speech. The speech featured no political rhetoric that was not directly related to taxation, and even when Dr. Laffer addressed politics it was not the strict criticism of liberal politics that your article portrays. Dr. Laffer criticized the tax policy of multiple Republicans as well, and while I concede that more criticism was directed toward Democrats, I would like to emphasize that this criticism was based on tax policy, not broader politics. Given Dr. Laffer’s work with the Trump Administration, the similarity of his tax policy to that of former President Trump is expected. However, a single similarity in policy and one debatable instance of common rhetoric is certainly not grounds for Dr. Laffer’s speech to be labeled as “Trumpism,” as it completely lacked the populist appeal and offensive tangents that the former President is known for. This is further supported by a response in the Q&A section following the speech, where Dr. Laffer endorsed immigration and urged increased migration from the southern border. How one could label an open endorsement of immigration as “A conservative sermon that left me wondering if I had wondered into a Trump rally” is beyond me, given that nearly every Trump rally leading up to the 2016 presidential race featured a “Build the Wall” chant. Dr. Laffer’s tax policy is undoubtedly conservative, but discussion of tax policy alone does not fit the image of the “conservative sermon” that your article depicts, as Dr. Laffer never endorsed any form of conservatism beyond taxation. Your analysis of the quote “Look at it this way. If you tax people who work and pay people who don’t work…” as a way of indicating that he believed that “the working class [is] a bunch of freeloaders” is especially interesting, as the quote directly indicates that it is not about the working class. The quote literally says “people who don’t work.” However, even if one were to change your phrasing to “the lower class,” (which, I assume, is what you meant) this was not an attack on anyone as lazy. Rather, Dr. Laffer’s criticism was of federal redistribution systems that pay people who are not working, thus promoting their refraining from work. There is an important distinction between systems that promote “laziness” and a person being “lazy” that your article does not seem to recognize. As for his discussion of increased international trade, Dr. Laffer explicitly stated that he believed that free trade with Russia could improve the United State’s hostile relationship with the country. This remark was not support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but rather a disapproval of political sanctions, which he believes worsen already poor international relationships. Ultimately, Anna, I think that you went into this speech with a preexisting opinion, and would’ve disliked Dr. Laffer’s speech regardless of what was said. Honestly, I think you could have written this article without attending the speech, as you did not utilize much from the speech in writing this article. If you disagree with Dr. Laffer’s points, I would like to speak for the Wake Forest student body in saying that we would love to read about it, but I wish you would address his actual argument rather than make unrelated political accusations. There are valid critiques of Dr. Laffer’s argument that are actually based on evidence, and you could have easily read a journal article and justified your opinion without this political tangent. For example, I have trouble with the fact that his theories largely don’t account for external factors, which certainly would’ve manipulated the data he displayed to some degree. However, instead of addressing inconsistencies in Dr. Laffer’s argument, you pieced together political insults that feel unsatisfying and quite frankly, lazy. Thank you for your contribution and I would love to hear your response.
Catherine Carpenter • Feb 23, 2023 at 1:14 pm
Will – this is an opinion piece. Calling her reporting “unsatisfying and lazy” is unnecessarily rude. If you have strong opinions on Dr. Laffer’s talk, I urge you to submit your own opinion piece instead of slandering others.
Will Ezzell • Feb 23, 2023 at 4:43 pm
Catherine, I understand that this is an opinion piece, and I apologize for the inflammatory nature of my response. I was not, at any point, trying to slander the writer’s opinions on tax policy, and would actually love to hear more of their opinion on taxation. The issue with this piece is that it almost completely lacks legitimate coverage of the writer’s opinion on Dr. Laffer’s policies and instead fabricates content, portraying what was a simple discussion of economic policy as a piece of political propaganda. The opinions that the writer expresses in this piece are not related to the actual content of the speech. I do not have strong feelings about Dr. Laffer and honestly, I am not a proponent of Laffer’s policies and would not defend them in an opinion piece of my own. I am instead writing to address the misinformation that this piece espouses, as anyone reading this would get a far different idea of the speech than what was actually said.