From Cherokee to Kuretuk, from the largest city to the smallest town, and from the statehouse to the schoolhouse, it's Carolina Journal Radio, your weekly news magazine discussing North Carolina's most important public policy events and issues. Welcome to this final edition of Carolina Journal Radio.
I'm Mitch Kocai. During the next hour, Donna Martinez and I will explore some major issues affecting our state. The addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court has revived discussion about originalism. You'll hear one expert's take on the role of legal precedent for originalist judges. Governor Roy Cooper wants Medicaid expansion.
Are there better alternatives? A John Locke Foundation expert offers some ideas. Free trade has faced attacks from high-profile figures in both major political parties.
Even supporters of free trade have different opinions about how to achieve the goal. You'll hear one top economist's assessment. And Donna Martinez and I will say goodbye to Carolina Journal Radio. We'll also offer you new ways to keep up with top North Carolina political and public policy stories. First, Donna joins us with the final Carolina Journal headline. When you think of a lawsuit, you naturally think of a dispute that pits one person or group or company with one point of view versus another person or group or company with a different point of view.
But that is not always the case. In fact, your life is impacted by what are called collusive settlements of some types of lawsuits. And it's happening right here in North Carolina. Andy Jackson is the director of the Civitas Center for Public Integrity at the John Locke Foundation. He joins me now to explain what this is and how we can protect North Carolinians from some of these collusive settlements. Andy, welcome to Carolina Journal Radio.
Thanks for having me. This whole thing starts with friendly people, friendly opponents. And we use the word opponents in quotes. They team up. That sounds crazy because you think that they're filing a lawsuit because there's a dispute.
Why do they team up? Well, the basic reason people team up in these kind of lawsuits is that they have some kind of mutual goal, either explicitly stated or sometimes just implied because they come from the same basic background, basic viewpoints. But they need essentially a court intervention to accomplish what they want to get accomplished.
They can't do it on their own. There's some kind of something in the law that works against both of them or sometimes in a private sphere. Sometimes there's a contract that maybe both of them want to get out of or to release one of the sides from a current contract to join a new contract. And so they essentially get together. One side sues the other.
Once again, this may or may not be planned in advance. And then they decide to reach a settlement at which gives the stamp of approval from a court on that, something they couldn't accomplish on their own. Interesting that they couldn't accomplish it on their own. But Andy, isn't the state legislature supposed to be the body that makes law, amends law, gets rid of law? How is it that this is happening in court? And does the General Assembly and their intent with their legislation that is being changed in court, does it make them really ineffective?
It potentially does. And this is the real issue with collusive lawsuits. I mean, if there's just two parties, they can probably work it out, obviously, without a lawsuit since they're already in agreement. But the real problem is that with these lawsuits is that they're usually a third party that is going to be negatively affected by this. So with state laws, clearly the body that makes the laws, in our case, in North Carolina, the General Assembly, they have an interest in seeing that if they pass a law, as long as it's a constitutional law, that it is something that is going to endure. Since that is their role in government, you can't have other parties just essentially getting rid of a law because they don't like it. And so that's the real danger. And that's the reason that the General Assembly actually has, as in the Constitution, has the right to intervene in such lawsuits. Unfortunately, as we saw in a recent case, that didn't really work out.
Exactly. And it was a very, very important case. This involved the State Board of Elections. Help us understand what the lawsuit and the collusive settlement was all about.
Well, this was a couple of things. On the one front, Karen Brinson-Beltz, who's Executive Director of the State Board of Elections, she had tried to loosen, weaken, whatever verbiage you want to use, protections against absentee ballot fraud at various times, ballot harvesting, undue influence over people in assisted living facilities, which is something that is against the law in North Carolina. Because of the coronavirus outbreak, she had been using that as a reason to try to loosen those laws. She did several attempts. One, she asked the General Assembly to make some changes, and they did agree.
There was this big bipartisan elections bill that passed. And so some of the changes that she asked where she got, they rejected some of those other ones. She also tried to change it through administrative rules within the law.
But this body in North Carolina called the Rules Review Commission also rejected that attempt. They said that's not within her power, emergency powers as Executive Director. And so she was essentially stuck. She had a whole body of things loosening some of these laws, changing early voting times that she clearly had wanted to do but couldn't do legally.
In walks Mark Elias. He is an attorney who's fairly well known in North Carolina nationally for being a Democratic kind of suit till blue lawyer. He had done a lawsuit and lo and behold, many of the measures in that lawsuit were along the lines of things that Karen Brinson Bell had requested earlier. So it was really strange that the State Board of Elections actually voted to put her in charge of negotiating a law settlement with Elias because of the similarity of some of their views. And so it's hardly surprising that the settlement that came out was something that in a lot of ways agreed with Brinson Bell's prior positions. Where does that leave the General Assembly specifically when it came to this lawsuit? Presumably they would be thinking the legislative leaders, hey, wait a second, we passed this bipartisan law.
We made some changes based on COVID-19, things that we needed to be addressed. But now one person and actually two people, one person who sues and then the director of the State Board of Elections get together and negate some of that? Well, that's what happened. And actually the leadership of the House and the Senate, they per North Carolina law, this is also in the books, and they are called intervening defendants. They said, well, we're going to go ahead and make ourselves defendants in the case along with the State Board of Elections so that now Mark Elias is also suing us. And so what should have happened to that point now that they are intervening defendants, they're part of the lawsuit, is that they would be part of the folks entering into negotiations over settlement, probably leading to there being no settlement and this actually going to a full trial. But that's not what happened. The judge in charge, Brian Collins, who has kind of a history of animosity towards the General Assembly, he once called it a usurper body. Wait a second. He called the General Assembly?
In a separate case earlier, I think it's 2019 or maybe early 2020, I'll have to look up the date. Yeah, he had called the General Assembly a usurper body in a case that has since that he ruled on that has since been overturned on appeal. So he already has that demonstrated animosity. And so even though the General Assembly leadership were intervening defendants in the case, he decided that this literally didn't deal with election law, even though it clearly did, it dealt with emergency powers. And so he cut them out and he said, well, I don't have to brief them on this.
And so even though they were defendants, the judge said, no, you're not. So we've seen this very consequential example of how these collusive settlements work. Andy, what can we do about this? And one would think the legislature having now experienced this would be saying, you know, we're the policy making body here. We need to do something.
What is it they need to do? Well, when you essentially have two branches teaming up on one, which is what we had here with the way that Judge Collins ruled, it's difficult. Probably the best way is to tighten up the law, because what you essentially had was this loophole. Yes, the law says that the branches have to be, you know, you know, they can be intervening defendants, but it doesn't specifically say that they have to be included in any kind of settlement. So I think the law needs to be made much more explicit on that point. Add some language to the law so that judges can't just willy nilly decide. No, even though you're a defendant, I'm not going to really count you on this. They're going to have to be a party to any settlements that come on lawsuits based on the law.
And we will have to wait and see if we do indeed see an effort to address this in the 2021 General Assembly, and they will be back a little bit later in January. Andy Jackson is the director of the Civitas Center for Public Integrity at the John Locke Foundation. He writes about all sorts of election issues.
You can find his work at johnlock.org. Andy, thanks for joining us. Thank you. Stay with us. Much more Carolina Journal radio to come in just a moment. Tired of fake news?
Tired of reporters with political axes to grind? Well, you need to be reading Carolina Journal. Honest, uncompromising, old school journalism you expect and you need. Even better, the monthly Carolina Journal is free to subscribers. Sign up at carolinajournal.com. You'll receive Carolina Journal newspaper in your mailbox each month.
Investigations into government spending, revelations about boondoggles, who the powerful leaders are and what they're doing in your name and with your money. We shine the light on it all with the stories and angles other outlets barely cover, but there's a bonus. Our print newspaper is published monthly, but our daily news site gives you the latest news each and every day. Log on to carolinajournal.com once, twice, even three times a day.
You won't be disappointed. It's fresh news. And if you'd like a heads up on the daily news, sign up for our daily email. Do that at carolinajournal.com. Carolina Journal, rigorous, unrelenting, old school journalism. We hold government accountable for you. Welcome back to Carolina Journal Radio.
I'm Mitch Kokay. The death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the debate over a new justice to join the Supreme Court remind us of some key constitutional questions. Among them, how much should justices follow Supreme Court precedent? The doctrine of stare decisis. What about if the justice thinks the precedent was wrong? It's a topic that prompted a recent online forum from the Duke Law School Federalist Society, the featured speaker, originalist constitutional law professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown. It's important to observe that the Supreme Court has never treated its previous decisions as binding in the same sense that lower courts are bound.
Never. Of course, the court does periodically invoke the doctrine of stare decisis and attempts to explain when prior decisions should be followed or not, as it did in Planned Parenthood versus Casey. But in practice, it's fair to say they're quite unlike the inferior courts. The Supreme Court asserts the power to overrule its own previous decisions.
Let me repeat that. The Supreme Court asserts the power to overrule its own previous decisions, even if the precedent is longstanding and even if it has been reaffirmed on many occasions. And if you think about it, that has to be the case, because under our system, only a constitutional amendment can reverse a ruling of the Supreme Court. So we need the Supreme Court to reverse its own rulings when those rulings are later thought to be mistaken. It's sort of inevitable that Supreme Court is not going to be bound by its previous decision the way lower courts are bound by the Supreme Court previous decisions. Barnett says different justices will approach court precedents in different ways. Now, for some justices, Roe versus Wade or really Planned Planned Parenthood versus Casey is currently and will always be in play and subject to reversal for other justices, Citizens United and D.C. versus Heller and a host of other Rehnquist and Roberts court decisions are susceptible to reversal.
And lest we forget, modern originalism arose in response to the New Deal, Warren and Burger Court's wholesale rejection of precedents that stood in the way of their agenda. When the justices really want to change direction, stare decisis poses no real obstacle to them doing so. If they want to, they can do it.
If there is a will, there is a way. That is the reality of stare decisis and at the Supreme Court level. And it has always been the reality at the Supreme Court level. And now this means that in practice, unlike inferior court judges, an originalist Supreme Court justice, like all other Supreme Court justices, has the option of voting inconsistently with previous opinions or decisions of the court. Barnett says even though all justices are willing to break with precedent when it suits them, some like to invoke the concept of stare decisis. Justices invoke this doctrine of stare decisis when for a variety of reasons, they don't want to reverse a precedent that they also do not feel comfortable claiming was correct. You're listening to Georgetown constitutional law professor Randy Barnett speaking during a recent online forum for the Duke Law School Federalist Society.
Barnett addressed a basic question. Is there any proper role for horizontal stare decisis at the Supreme Court if we ever do have a majority of originalist justices? Now at a minimum, I would say that Supreme Court justices should give stare decisis weight to previous opinions of the court that a justice is satisfied, utilized originalist reasoning in good faith.
Justices should give stare decisis weight to previous opinions of the court that a justice is satisfied, utilized originalist reasoning in good faith. The reason for this is epistemic. Originalist research is difficult and time consuming, and we cannot be confident, none of us can be confident, of the conclusions of originalist analysis until it is subjected to genuine peer review by other originalist scholars holding different views. I myself, when I read a very powerful originalist piece of scholarship about an area that I don't know that much about and which I find personally persuasive, I may be persuaded as a working hypothesis that, well, maybe that's right, or maybe that is right. But I wait until I hear what other originalist scholars or other even non-originalist scholars say about the evidence who don't agree with that. And then I can weigh the competing arguments and see which is stronger. So I have to reserve judgment until I hear what other people have to say.
And that's not a, that doesn't happen overnight. Now, once the court has reached a conclusion on the basis of peer reviewed originalist scholarship, there is a good, very good prudential reason for originalist justices to defer to that decision unless and until it is called into question by persuasive competing originalist scholarship. Barnett says opponents of originalism focus on the way it might change existing law, but originalism often leads to the same outcomes as other approaches to constitutional law. This suggests another option for originalist justices, as well as for lower court judges.
And that is to follow the holdings of previous cases while explaining in majority or concurring opinions why these results are consistent with original meaning. The more this is done, the less threatening originalism becomes the non-originalist and the easier it will be to alter or reshape existing doctrine to bring it into closer alignment with original meaning. Barnett outlines two goals for originalist judges.
The first goal is the achievement of originalist outcomes. In the world of ideal theory, originalist judges would reach and justify originalist outcomes on the basis of originalist reasoning every time. Yet where this is not feasible, originalist justices should still strive for originalist outcomes or results. An originalist outcome is an outcome that either required or permitted by the original public meaning of the Constitution's text, in contrast with an outcome that conflicts with that meaning.
McDonald v. City of Chicago, again, is an example of this. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia and Kennedy joined a non-originalist opinion by Justice Alito that reached the same outcome as Justice Thomas's originalist opinion. From an originalist standpoint, that is much better than the stance taken by the four progressive dissenters who would have denied an individual right to keep and bear arms altogether. A second goal for originalist judges is to place a high value on political or ideological neutrality. For the originalist project to succeed, originalism must have wide appeal. For this reason, it is especially important that originalist justices and judges be willing to reach originalist outcomes even and perhaps especially in cases where the result is one that would be favored by liberals or progressives and opposed by conservatives or libertarians.
Let me put this another way. The originalist project would be sabotaged if originalist judges and justices disregard precedent in favor of originalism when it leads to outcomes they like and then turn around and disregard originalism by relying on non-originalist precedents when originalism leads to results they dislike. Progressives are deeply suspicious of originalism. Overcoming that suspicion is a large task, but it is difficult to imagine that the perception that originalism is simply a cover for right-wing judicial ideology can be overcome if originalist approach stare decisis in anything other than an ideologically and politically neutral manner. Barnett pointed originalist judges toward an overarching goal. Even originalists who believe that the rule of judges should never trump the rule provided by the original meaning of the Constitution itself, and by this I mean originalists like me, need to come to grips with how virtuous original justices and inferior court judges should comport themselves in a principled manner, in a world of imperfect knowledge of what original meaning requires, as well as a world of collegial courts that for now at least are still dominated by non-originalist judges. But we must never lose sight of the ultimate goal, attaining consistency with the written Constitution to which all justices and judges have taken an oath, a written Constitution that is superior to the Constitution that has been given us by the Supreme Court. Originalism claims that to the extent the meaning of the Constitution was fixed when it was adopted, a faithful judge has a duty to follow this fixed meaning, unless and until a superior authority says otherwise. Justices of the Supreme Court should be striving to restore the meaning of the Constitution, the whole Constitution.
The doctrine of stare decisis is not a justification for their failure to do so, it is merely an excuse. That's Georgetown constitutional law professor Randy Barnett discussing originalism and the importance of court precedent. He offered these remarks during an online forum for the Duke Law School Federalist Society. We'll return with more Carolina Journal radio in a moment. If you love freedom, we've got great news to share with you. Now you can find the latest news, views, and research from conservative groups across North Carolina all in one place. North Carolina Conservative dot com. It's one stop shopping for North Carolina's freedom movement. At North Carolina Conservative dot com, you'll find links to John Locke Foundation blogs on the day's news, Carolina Journal dot com reporting and quick takes, Carolina Journal radio interviews, TV interviews featuring CJ reporters and Locke Foundation analysts, opinion pieces and reports on higher education from the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, commentary and polling data from the Civitas Institute, and news and views from the North Carolina Family Policy Council.
That's right. All in one place. North Carolina Conservative dot com. That's North Carolina spelled out conservative dot com. North Carolina Conservative dot com.
Try it today. North Carolina is changing not just day to day, but hour to hour, minute to minute, even second to second. How could you keep up with the changes, especially the ones that affect you, your family, your home, your job? Make the John Locke Foundation and Carolina Journal part of your social media diet. On Facebook, like the John Locke Foundation, like Carolina Journal. Follow us on Twitter at John Locke NC and at Carolina Journal.
News insights and analysis you'll find nowhere else. Thanks to the experts at the John Locke Foundation and thanks to the first class investigative reporting of Carolina Journal. Don't wait for the morning newspaper. Don't wait for the evening news.
If it's happening now, it's happening here. The John Locke Foundation and Carolina Journal have you covered with up to the second information. Like us on Facebook, the John Locke Foundation and Carolina Journal. Follow us on Twitter at John Locke NC and at Carolina Journal. Who knew you could shop and invest in freedom at the same time?
It is true. Online shopping is now a great way to support the John Locke Foundation. Just shop using the Amazon Smile program and designate the John Locke Foundation to receive a portion of your purchase amount. That's right, you shop. Amazon donates money to us, the John Locke Foundation.
Here's how. Log on to smile.amazon.com. Amazon Smile is the same Amazon you know.
Same products, same prices. But here's what's better. Amazon donates 0.5% of the price of your eligible Amazon Smile purchases to the John Locke Foundation. So try it. Be sure to designate us as the nonprofit you want to support. It's that easy. So now, not only will you enjoy what you buy, you'll also support freedom.
Don't forget, log on to smile.amazon.com today. Buy something nice and help defend freedom. Help support the John Locke Foundation. Welcome back to Carolina Journal Radio.
I'm Mitch Kogai. A state task force looking into health care coverage recently listened to ideas from the John Locke Foundation. Jordan Roberts spent nearly three years focusing on health care issues for the Locke Foundation. He offered thoughts about coverage issues during an online briefing. What is the problem we want to solve? And to me, it's that health insurance can be unaffordable for those who don't get it from work or from a public program. And a second part of that problem is that those who have health insurance may struggle to pay the premiums and out of pocket costs.
So at the root level, it's that the problem is that the products we have on the market right now can be unaffordable to a lot of North Carolinians. And so what causes this problem and this may seem intuitive, but the cost of health care drives the cost of insurance. And what I mean by that is the services, the price of services. That is what gets priced into our premiums.
And you can look at the research that the United States pays more than any other country for these procedures of health care. And so part of this discussion needs to focus on reforms that loosen health care regulations and bring down the cost of care. Where I see the opportunities for reform are mostly in the individual market. And yeah, for those who don't get health insurance from work of the government, the individual market is really the only place to go. First solution that I want to talk about is state empowerment and relief waivers. And sometimes these are called Section 1332 waivers or state innovation waivers.
But we're all talking about the same thing here. But essentially under Section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act, states can apply to the federal government to waive regulations imposed on the individual market. And what this does is it gives states the opportunity to exert a lot more control over the health insurance products that are offered to its residents. So there's been a lot of talk about association health plans. Essentially association health plans are a type of large group health plan offered by business and trade associations to its member employers. These plans allow the small businesses self-employed owners to band together to purchase health insurance as a large group.
And so why does it matter to purchase a large group? Well, the ACA segmented the market. So there's a different set of regulations for small and individual group plans as compared to large group plans. And so these mom and pop shops and individual retailers can get together and buy health insurance as a large group plan. They can get plans at a much more affordable rate. And this helps everyone that may be a part of that member association. They're subject to all the same rules that current large group health plans are.
So any large group health plans are operating under the same rules. That's Jordan Roberts of the John Locke Foundation. He's offering ideas about health care coverage reform.
Roberts made these comments during a recent meeting of a state task force set up by the governor. We'll return with more Carolina Journal Radio in a moment. We're doubling down on freedom.
At Carolina Journal Radio, we're proud to bring you stories that impact your life and your wallet. And now get twice as much freedom when you also listen to our podcast, Headlock, available on iTunes and at johnlock.org slash podcast. Now Headlock is a little bit different.
It's a no holds barred discussion that challenges soft headed ideas from the left and the right. But like Carolina Journal Radio, Headlock is smart and timely. But with Headlock, you'll hear more about the culture wars and you'll get some more humor as well. We guarantee great information and a good time.
Double down with us. Listen to Carolina Journal Radio each week and listen to Headlock too. Remember, you can listen to Headlock at johnlock.org slash podcast or subscribe or download each week at iTunes, Carolina Journal Radio and Headlock, just what you need to stay informed and stay entertained. Both brought to you in the name of freedom by the John Locke Foundation. Welcome back to Carolina Journal Radio.
I'm Mitch kokai. The basic ideas of free trade have faced increased scrutiny, especially since the 2016 presidential election campaign. And the challenges come from more than just the out and out opponents of free trade.
The topic cropped up during the recent online annual conference of the group classical liberals of the Carolinas. George Mason University economist Donald Boudreau contrasted two groups of people who both support free trade. I call these two groups the multilateralists and the unilateralists.
The multilateralists are the most prominent and dominant of the group in public policy discussion. They're not completely ignorant of trade. They're not naive mercantilists or naive protectionists.
They understand that trade is a positive sum process. They share with unilateralists the ultimate goal of a world completely devoid of protective tariffs and export subsidies or any kind of subsidies for that matter. But they differ from the unilateralists in that they reject categorically a policy of unilateral free trade. The multilateralists, and I think if you look at prominent trade people, not so much in the Trump administration, but prior to that, Rob Portman and other people who have been trading negotiators for the US, I think they are, in fact, even Cordell Hull, I would put in this, the great Cordell Hull I would put into this category, is a multilateralist. They understand free trade, but they reject unilateral free trade.
And as you know, most of you know, economists are a strange breed. We tend most, at least a large number of us, a surprisingly large number compared to the general population, tend to support a policy of unilateral free trade. We want free trade regardless of what policies are being pursued by other governments.
So what accounts for this difference in worldview? For the multilateralists, they see China gaining. So China gains because it gets protected from imports from the US and the US suffers because it imports less than it did previously, in this case, to China. I think the fundamental difference and what accounts for the differences in the two logics I'm going to show you between multilateralists and unilateralists is that multilateralists, for all their good thoughts about trade, they still commit the fundamental mercantilist mistake of believing that trade's benefits are ultimately found in the amount that a country exports and not in the amount that a country imports.
Boudreaux used an economic concept called game theory. He started first with multilateralists and looked at their assessment of a competing country, China, adopting protectionist policies. So if China moves from free trade to protectionism and the US remains a free trader, in the multilateralist view, the Chinese gain an unfair advantage. They get protection from imports coming from America and their doing so, their protection, reduces America's exports to China. Because multilateralists believe, understand along with unilateralists, at least the multilateralists that I'm speaking of, who I think were dominant players in trade policy, the gains to the protecting country, in this case, China, are less than the losses to the free trading country.
Because these multilateralists to whom I'm referring, they do believe that a world of free trade, in which every country is trading freely, is the best of all available worlds, all possible worlds. But countries can gain, in their view, by adopting protectionism, if the other country or other countries remain in a state of free trade. When China moves toward protectionism, China gains, America loses, but the American government isn't dumb. It can gain by itself moving to protectionism. And so if in response to Chinese protectionism, America adopts protectionism, America cuts its losses. And of course, by moving to protectionism, America inflicts losses also on the Chinese. The Chinese, of course, would like America to remain resolutely free trade. And this is why I think the multilateralists think it's crazy for the unilateralists to support a policy of unilateral free trade.
Why that's crazy, they say. If America resolutely sticks to policy of free trade, the Chinese are gaining, we can at least cut our losses by matching the Chinese protectionist policies with our own protectionist policies. That's economist Donald Boudreau of George Mason University speaking in a recent online forum for the group, Classical Liberals of the Carolinas. He was just describing a group of free trade supporters he dubs multilateralists.
What about his other group, the unilateralists? We recognize something that the unilateralists don't, that imports, of course, are the benefit of trade and exports are a cost of trade or a cost worth bearing, of course, because they bring us imports, which presumably are worthwhile. If China were to move to protectionism, the first thing I notice is that the great bulk of the damage of China's protectionism falls on the Chinese people themselves. Now, unlike some naive free traders, or that many of them, but there are some naive free traders, we unilateralists understand that foreign government protectionism does impose some damage on the home country. When China moves to a policy of protectionism, in this example, it reduces America's payoff. Importantly, the damage to America is much lower than the damage that the Chinese protectionism imposes on China itself. That's a fundamental feature of the way unilateralists think, but we do recognize that there is a cost that Americans suffer as a result of Chinese protectionism.
Adam Smith was very explicit about this in book four of The Wealth of Nations. He understood that when foreign countries impose import restraints, that that reduces the ability of producers in the home country to export. Therefore, that might reduce the ability of home country producers to take advantage of economies of scale and that inability to take advantage of economies of scale might well result in a net loss to the home country.
But the unilateralists say, but look, there's a danger here. If we follow the multilateralist advice and adopt our own protectionism, we're not going to increase our payoff as the multilateralists believe. We're going to further suffer losses. In fact, the losses that we will inflict on ourselves will be larger than the losses that we are suffering from those that are inflicted on us by China's protectionism.
Yes, it is true. We recognize that when we adopt protectionism, just as when the Chinese adopt the protectionism, that impose some losses on us. If we were to adopt protectionism, that would impose further losses on the Chinese. And so if we move to our own policy of protectionism, then the payoff to both countries is reduced at a first pass. The unilateralist says, there's no point in doing this. Why should we make ourselves even worse off? Yes, we make China worse off, but why should we make ourselves even worse off? Let's stick to a policy of free trade regardless of what China does. There's a point to Boudreau's efforts to contrast the multilateralists who support trade negotiations and some forms of protectionism with the unilateralists who never support limits on trade.
This logic, I think, gives us reason to doubt that retaliatory tariffs would work, hence reasons for why unilateral free traders don't put much stock in the actual feasibility or practicality of retaliatory tariffs. That's economics professor Donald Boudreau of George Mason University, a recent featured speaker at the online annual conference of the group Classical Liberals in the Carolinas. We'll return with more Carolina Journal radio in a moment. You'll influence.
You either have it or you don't. And at the John Locke Foundation, we have it. You'll find our guiding principles in many of the freedom forward reforms of the past decade here in North Carolina. So while others talk or complain or name call, we provide research, solutions, and hope. Our team analyzes the pressing issues of the day, jobs, health care, education, and more. We look for effective ways to give you more freedom, more options, more control over your life. Our goal is to transform North Carolina into a growing, thriving economic powerhouse, the envy of every other state. Our research has helped policymakers make decisions that ensure you keep more of what you earn, expand your choice of schools for your kids, widen your job opportunities, improve your access to doctors, the recipe for stability and a bright future, for truth, for freedom, for the future of North Carolina.
We are the John Locke Foundation. Welcome back to Carolina Journal Radio. And this segment of Carolina Journal Radio is somewhat bittersweet because it marks the end of the program. This is Mitch Kokay, joined by my co-host, Donna Martinez. Donna, you'd normally be in the spot of closing the show, but we're going to close this episode together because we're actually closing the show.
That's right. It's hard to believe, Mitch, but after a number of years of really bringing such important and we hope enlightening and sometimes even fun information to North Carolinians listening to Carolina Journal Radio, this is the final episode of Carolina Journal Radio. But just this format, you and I are going to continue to be talking about public policy and politics in North Carolina. We'll talk a little bit about how they can hear each of us, but it has been an incredible ride. I've enjoyed it so much, not only working with you, but being able to help people understand the different choices that our state lawmakers are poised to make, things that will impact their lives, their livelihoods, their wallets, their kids. It's been an incredible ride. I've enjoyed it. You mentioned a number of years the show has been on for almost 18 years and you've been a part of it from not the very beginning, but almost the beginning.
And I joined about two and a half years into it near the end of 2005. We're going to talk a little bit about some of the things that we see ahead, but first let's take care of some housekeeping. First item is, as you mentioned, Carolina Journal Radio is ending, but that doesn't mean that people have to stop listening to either one of us. People can listen to you on a daily basis and on a weekly basis. First, let's start with the weekly item through the John Locke Foundation. If folks don't already know this, you basically host an hour-long program that they could see on Facebook, potentially on YouTube as well, every week in which you're interviewing panels, interviewing experts.
Talk to us about the Shaftesbury Society. I am so delighted to be able to host these get-togethers, panel discussions, really conversations with experts. It's every Monday at 12 noon and it is live streamed on the John Locke Foundation's Facebook page and also on the John Locke Foundation's website, which is johnlock.org.
So all you have to do, if you want to pre-register to have the link sent to you, you can, but you can also just log onto the Facebook page or the website Monday at noon. And I host this conversation and we talk about a lot of the same types of things, Mitch, that you and I have been talking about on Carolina Journal Radio for four years, but it is... In fact, a lot of the segments on Carolina Journal Radio have been excerpts of the program.
Exactly. And it is just so rich with content and we usually have two, three, four panelists and we talk about a particular subject. So I really hope that folks, if you haven't taken advantage of that to this point, that you will join us for the virtual Shaftesbury Society presentations Monday, 12 noon. And if that's not enough, you're also on the air every day on WPTF radio, which you can hear in Raleigh, but anywhere that folks listen to this program, you could listen online. Tell us about your daily show with your husband, Rick. It is three to 6 p.m. live weekdays on WPTF. If you're in the Triangle, you can hear that at 680 a.m., but you can also go online, WPTF.com.
And also there is an app, a WPTF app, and you can listen live there. Rick and I talk about current events, the news of the day. We talk about public policy. We talk about entertainment. And Mitch, you have been a guest and a co-host with me a number of times. So it's meant to catch people up and to give some perspective to the news of the day.
And so folks can join us in multiple ways. I hope they will. One other way that people can hear some of the continuing conversation now the Carolina Journal radio is ending is through the Headlock podcast. And I say Headlock, although I don't think that name is going to continue. We've been for several years now having this podcast called Headlock, but it's probably going to change its name.
I've been hosting it most recently and now I'm co-hosting with our colleague, Brooke Medina. And people could go to John Locke dot org slash podcast to get it directly. Or you can find the Headlock podcast most of the places where you find podcasts.
So look for Headlock, you'll find that there. Another thing I wanted to point out is that people who are interested in the types of interviews that we've done at Carolina Journal radio can also go to Carolina Journal dot com and find videos. We've been posting videos of the radio interviews for a long time. We'll continue to post videos of interviews, probably not all in the eight and a half to nine minute segments that we need for Carolina Journal radio, but a bunch of the same types of things at Carolina Journal dot com. So that's going to be something very important for people to know if they want this type of material moving forward. And Mitch, I think the bottom line is that there are so many ways now for folks to be able to continue to access you and me and others here at the John Locke Foundation, whether you're interested in hearing us or watching us or logging on to our website or our blog, which we hope you do multiple times a day.
The Locke Foundation is here to stay. Before we kind of turn to what's next for the future of our state and public policy, because we're both going to have a couple of thoughts on that. I do also before forgetting want to thank the people who've been involved in preparing this program. You and I have been hosting this, but it also takes a lot of effort to put this show together. If you like the way it sounds, you can also thank the team at Carolina Broadcasting.
A long time N.C. Spin host, Tom Campbell, owns that company. And the people specifically who've been most involved in this show have been Matt Corey, who assembles it week to week, and Cynthia Whitaker, who's been involved in assembling the information for all of the affiliates, keeping them up to date. So we definitely want to thank Matt, Cynthia, Tom Campbell and that whole team at Carolina Broadcasting. Thank you, guys.
Appreciate all of your help and your support over the years. Well, in the couple of minutes that we have left, you and I have both been following North Carolina Public Policy for a long time. Give us some thoughts about what are the main things you're going to be watching for in 2021. Mitch, I think everything will continue to be dominated by what I hope is our lifting ourselves out of the covid-19 pandemic. Not only is that a public health emergency, but we know that it has really shined the light on the incredible powers of the governor of North Carolina. Not just Roy Cooper, but the governor's seat itself. Now, we have seen Governor Cooper take a very muscular, robust approach to having power over people's lives attached to the pandemic.
He has used it long term. That has brought about all sorts of questions about whether or not it is a good idea to have one person have that type of singular power over months and months and months. I think we're going to see the state legislature have an interesting discussion about that because precedent is being set here for future governors, what they may deem to be an existential threat to North Carolina should they decide to harness that power as Governor Roy Cooper has. And I think one of the other interesting pieces that goes along with that is just how Governor Roy Cooper and the Republican leaders of the General Assembly will work together or against each other during the next two years. We saw that there was quite a bit of stalemate over the last couple of years as the General Assembly had its priorities. The governor had his priorities when they didn't meet rather than sitting at the table saying, well, what can we get out of this that we both like? In many occasions, it just ended up being stalemate.
We don't even have a new budget. We haven't had one for a couple of years because they haven't had agreement. So it'll be interesting to see whether we see more future cooperation or continued stalemate over the next couple of years.
And that could also fit in with this whole notion of what kinds of powers do the two branches have. It's going to be quite an interesting 2021. We are at that time here in the final episode of Carolina Journal Radio. On behalf of my co-host, Mitch Kokay, I'm Donna Martinez. Folks, we've enjoyed so much having you a part of our lives here at Carolina Journal Radio.
Thank you for listening. Carolina Journal Radio is a program of the John Locke Foundation. To learn more about the John Locke Foundation, including donations that support programs like Carolina Journal Radio, send email to development at johnlock.org or call 1-866-JLF-INFO.
That's 1-866-553-4636. Carolina Journal Radio is a co-production of the John Locke Foundation, North Carolina's free market think tank, and Carolina Broadcasting System, Incorporated. All opinions expressed on this program are solely those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of advertisers or the station. For more information about the show or other programs and services of the John Locke Foundation, visit johnlock.org or call us toll free at 1-866-JLF-INFO. We'd like to thank our wonderful radio affiliates across North Carolina and our sponsors. From all of us at Carolina Journal Radio, thank you for listening and please join us again next week.
Whisper: medium.en / 2023-12-29 09:55:55 / 2023-12-29 10:13:19 / 17