What’s the Deal with Vance’s War on Milton Friedman?

To this date, legendary economist Milton Friedman has been the antidote to every no-good, rotten, and very bad leftist policy, whether in education or taxes. The Republican Party, in theory, is meant to be the mainstream Washington entity fending off Keynesian endeavors. Free markets? America doesn’t need no stinkin’ free markets. At least, that is the latest insight from the mind of Vice President JD Vance.

Where Did Milton Friedman Hurt You?

GOP populism, for the most part, is not exactly a beacon of free-market economics you would find in Free to Choose, For a New Liberty, or Basic Economics. It is ostensibly a vast array of economic theories blended into a single framework. Some good, some bad. The current administration has taken a little bit of everything, be it good old-fashioned conservatism or big-government leftism.

The vice president, in a recent interview with The Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles, declared that Milton Friedman’s ideas are essentially no longer welcome in today’s Republican Party.

“Milton Friedman’s ideas made more sense in the 1980s because they were being advocated in a country that still had a very rich and powerful institutional Christianity,” Vance said. “American economic policy on the right is now much more Alexander Hamilton than it is Milton Friedman. I think that’s obviously a good thing.”

Supporters say that the vice president is correct because 80% of America was white and religious in 1984. Critics would argue that free-market capitalism works regardless of the demographics in the United States.

If Friedman’s wisdom is restricted from entering the GOP’s premises, the key question is: Is this a positive transition for Republicanism?

The Hamiltonian Affair

Vance’s remarks are not entirely surprising, as his political career has been reliant on advancing the tenets of right-wing populism, mainly in the form of Hamiltonian protectionism. Alexander Hamilton advocated for a powerful, centralized federal government and a central bank. The first US Treasury Secretary backed tariffs, protectionist policies, and state intervention through stimulus measures.

President Donald Trump has adopted these stances, and not just tariffs. The current administration has taken equity stakes in scores of US companies and could partake in the profits of artificial intelligence (AI) companies. While these have so far been profitable moves for taxpayers, they are not in line with free market principles. There is a reason chipmaker Intel struggled for years until Washington came along.

Friedman, on the other hand, desired the exact opposite of the Hamiltonian fan club. Toward the end of his life, the eminent economist from the Chicago school went so far as to determine that the only areas in which government had a hand were the military and the justice system. Friedman even supported abolishing the central bank.

“The central banks of major countries like the United States have far from a spotless record,” Friedman said in a 1993 speech. He continued:

“So my own judgment is that there is no need for a lender of last resort, that the market is perfectly capable of providing that function, that if banks go bad, it is best that they fail earlier and not later. They will do less harm if they fail early. So taken as a whole, my conclusion is: we do not need central banks, but we shall certainly continue to have them.”

Both sides of the political aisle will air their grievances over free markets when in power. Former President Joe Biden blamed mom-and-pop gasoline stations for higher fuel prices. The current administration is threatening federal investigations if these same outlets do not dramatically reduce pump prices. And this could be a problem for America moving forward.

Whether it’s Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D‑NY) or California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the next Democrat to take the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue could just as easily wield the tools of Trumpism in service of progressive aims. Will Vance present a watered-down version of his Democratic opponent – AOC, Newsom, former Vice President Kamala Harris, or Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) – in 2028?

Goodbye, Friedmanites

It has been almost 20 years since Milton Friedman’s death. His books, essays, speeches, and interviews continue to influence young minds today and dispel so much of the nonsense coming from democratic socialists. And yet, the vice president is denigrating, disavowing, and dismissing Friedman’s economics.

To paraphrase the great Jimmy Durante: Good night, Mr. Friedman. Wherever you are!