DRI-291 for week of 7-27-14: How to Debate Bill Moyers

An Access Advertising EconBrief:

How to Debate Bill Moyers

In the course of memorializing a fellow economist who died young, Milton Friedman observed that “we are all of us teachers.” He meant the word in more than the academic sense. Even those economists who live and work outside the academy are still required to inculcate economic fundamentals in their audience. The general public knows less about economics than a pig knows about Sunday – a metaphor justly borrowed from Harry Truman, whose opinion of economists was famously low.

Successful teachers quickly sense that they have entered their persuasive skills into a rhetorical contest with the students’ inborn resistance to learning. Economists face the added handicap that most people overrate their own understanding of the subject matter and are reluctant to jettison the emotional baggage that hinders their absorption of economic logic.

All this puts an economist behind the eight-ball as educator. But in public debate, economists usually find themselves frozen against the rail as well (to continue the analogy with pocket billiards). The most recent case of this competitive disadvantage was the appearance by Arthur C. Brooks, titular head of the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), on the PBS interview program hosted by longtime network fixture Bill Moyers.

Brooks vs. Moyers: An Unequal Contest

At first blush, one might consider the pairing of Brooks, seasoned academic, Ph D. and author of ten books, with Moyers, onetime divinity student and ordained minister who left the ministry for life in politics and journalism, to be an unequal contest. And so it was. Brooks spent the program figuratively groping for a handhold on his opponent while Moyers railed against Brooks with abandon. It seemed clear that each had different objectives. Moyers was insistent on painting conservatives (directly) and Brooks (indirectly) as insensitive, unfeeling and uncaring, while Brooks seemed content that he understood the defensive counterarguments he made in his behalf, even if nobody else did.

Moyers never lost sight of the fact that he was performing to an audience whose emotional buttons he knew from memory and long experience. Brooks was speaking to a critic in his own head rather than playing to an alien house whose sympathies were presumptively hostile.

To watch with a rooting interest in Brooks’ side of the debate was to risk death from utter frustration. In this case, the only balm of Gilead lies in restaging Brooks’ reactions to Moyers’ sallies. This should amount to a debater’s handbook for economists in dealing with the populists of the hard political left wing.

Who is Bill Moyers?

It is important for any debater to know his opponent going into the debate. Moyers is careful to put up a front as an honest broker in ideas. Brooks’ appearance on Moyers’ show is headlined as “Arthur C. Brooks: The Conscience of a Compassionate Conservative,” as if to suggest that Moyers is giving equal time in good faith to an ideological opponent.

This is sham and pretense. Bill Moyers is a professional hack who has spent his whole life in the service of the political left wing. While in his teens, he became a political intern to Texas Senator Lyndon Johnson. After acquiring a B.A. degree in journalism from the University of Texas at Austin, Moyers got an M.A. from the Southwest Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. After ordination, he forsook the ministry for a career in journalism and left-wing politics, two careers that have proved largely indistinguishable for over the last few decades. He served in the Peace Corps from 1961-63 before joining the Johnson Administration, serving as LBJ’s Press Secretary from 1965-67. He performed various dirty tricks under Johnson’s direction, including spearheading an FBI investigation of Goldwater campaign aides to uncover usable dirt for the 1964 Presidential campaign. (Apparently, only one traffic violation and one illicit love affair were unearthed among the fifteen staffers.) A personal rift with Johnson led to his resignation in 1967. Moyers edited the Long Island publication Newsday for three years and he alternated between broadcast journalism (PBS, CBS, back to PBS) and documentary-film production thereafter until his elevation to the presidency of the SchumanCenter for Media and Democracy in 1990. Now 80 years old, he occupies a position best described as “political-hack emeritus.”

With this resume under his belt, Moyers cannot maintain any pretense as an honest broker in ideas, his many awards and honorary degrees notwithstanding. After all, the work of America’s leading investigative reporters, James Steele and Donald Barlett, has been exposed in this space as shockingly inept and politically tendentious. Journalists are little more than political advocates and Bill Moyers has thrived in this climate.

In the 1954 movie Night People, Army military intelligence officer Gregory Peck enlightens American politician Broderick Crawford about the true nature of the East German Communists who have kidnapped Crawford’s son. “These are cannibals…bloodthirsty cannibals who are trying to eat us up,” Peck insists. That describes Bill Moyers and his ilk, who are among those aptly characterized by F.A. Hayek as the “totalitarians in our midst.”

This is the light in which Arthur Brooks should have viewed his debate with Bill Moyers. Unfortunately, Brooks seemed stuck in defensive mode. His emphasis on “conscience” and “compassion” seemed designed to stress that he had a conscience – why leave the inference that this was in doubt? – and that he was a compassionate conservative – as opposed to what other kind, exactly? Thus, he began by giving hostages to the enemy before even sitting down to debate.

Brooks spent the interview crouched in this posture of defense, thereby guaranteeing that he would lose the debate even if he won the argument.

Moyers’ Talking Points – and What Brooks Should Have Said

Moyers’ overall position can be summarized in terms of what the great black Thomas Sowell has called “volitional economics.” The people Moyers disapproves of – that is, right-wingers and owners of corporations – have bad intentions and are, ipso facto, responsible for the ills and bad outcomes of the world.

Moyers: “Workers at Target, McDonald’s and Wal-Mart need food stamps to survive…Wal-Mart pays their workers so little that their average worker depends on $4,000 per year in government subsidies.”

Brooks: “Well, we could pay them a higher minimum wage – then they would be unemployed and be completely on the public dole…”

Moyers: “Because the owners of Wal Mart would not want to pay them that higher minimum wage [emphasis added].

 

WHAT BROOKS SHOULD HAVE SAID: “Wait a minute. Did you just say that the minimum wage causes higher unemployment because business owners don’t want to pay it? Is that right? [Don’t go on until he agrees.] So if the business owners just went ahead and paid all their low-skilled employees the higher minimum wage instead of laying off some of them, everything would be fine, right? That’s what your position is? [Make him agree.]

Well, then – WHY DON’T YOU DO IT? WHY DON’T YOU – BILL MOYERS – GO BUY A MCDONALD’S FRANCHISE AND PAY EVERY LOW-SKILLED EMPLOYEE CURRENTLY MAKING THE MINIMUM WAGE AND EVERY NEW HIRE THE HIGHER MINIMUM WAGE YOU ADVOCATE. SHOW US ALL HOW IT’S DONE. DON’T JUST CLAIM THAT I’M WRONG – PROVE IT FOR ALL THE WORLD TO SEE. THEN YOU CAN HAVE THE LAUGH ON ME AND ALL MY RIGHT-WING FRIENDS.

[When he finishes sputtering:] You aren’t going to do it, are you? You certainly can’t claim that Bill Moyers doesn’t have the money to buy a franchise and hire a manager to run it. And you certainly can’t claim that the left-wing millionaires and billionaires of the world don’t have the money -not with Tom Steyer spending a hundred million dollars advertising climate change. The minimum wage has been in force since the 1930s and the left-wing has been singing its praises for my whole life – but when push comes to shove the left-wing businessmen pay the same wages as the right-wing businessmen. Why? Because they don’t want to go broke, that’s why.

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO SAY THIS: The audience for Bill Moyers’ program consists mainly of people who agree with Bill Moyers; that is, of economic illiterates who do their reasoning with their gall bladders. It is useless to use formal economic logic on them because they are impervious to it. It is futile to cite studies on the minimum wage because the only studies they care about are the recent ones – dubious in the extreme – that claim to prove the minimum wage has only small adverse effects on employment.

The objective with these people is roughly the same as with Moyers himself: take them out of their comfort zone. There is no way they can fail to understand the idea of doing what Moyers himself advocates because it is what they themselves claim to want. All Brooks would be saying is: Put your money where your mouth is. This is the great all-purpose American rebuttal. And he would be challenging people known to have money, not the poor and downtrodden.

This is the most straightforward, concrete, down-to-earth argument. There is no way to counter it or reply to it. Instead of leaving Brooks at best even with Moyers in a “he-said, he-said” sort of swearing contest, it would have left him on top of the argument with his foot on Moyers’ throat, looking down. At most, Moyers could have limply responded with, “Well, I might just do that,” or some such evasion.

Moyers: “Just pay your workers more… [But] instead of paying a living wage… [owners] do stock buy-backs…”

Brooks: [ignores the opportunity].

WHAT BROOKS SHOULD HAVE SAID: “Did you just use the phrase ‘LIVING WAGE,’ Mr. Moyers? Would you please explain just exactly what a LIVING WAGE is? [From here on, the precise language will depend on the exact nature of his response, but the general rebuttal will follow the same pattern as below.] Is this LIVING WAGE a BIOLOGICAL LIVING WAGE? I mean, will workers DIE if they don’t receive it? But they don’t have it NOW, right? And they’re NOT dying, right? So the term as you use it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LIVING OR DYING, does it? It’s just a colorful term that you use because you hope it will persuade people to agree with you by getting them to feel sorry for workers, isn’t it?

There are over 170 countries in the world, Mr. Moyers. In almost all of those countries, low-skilled workers work for lower wages than they do here in the United States. Did you know that? In many countries, low-skilled workers earn the equivalent of less than $1,000 per year in U.S. dollars. In a few countries, they earn just a few hundred dollars worth of dollar-equivalent wages per year. PER YEAR, Mr. Moyers. For you to sit here and use the term “LIVING WAGE” for a wage THIRTY TO FIFTY TIMES HIGHER THAN THE WAGE THEY EARN IS POSITIVELY OBSCENE. Don’t you agree, MR. MOYERS? They don’t die either – BUT I BET THEY GET PRETTY HUNGRY SOMETIMES. What do you bet – MR. MOYERS?

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO SAY THIS: The phrase “living wage” has been a left-wing catch-phrase longer than most people today have been alive. Its use is “free” because users are never challenged to explain or defend it. It sounds good because it has a nice ring of urgency and necessity to it. But upon close examination it disintegrates like toilet tissue in a bowl. There is no such wage as a wage necessary to sustain life in the biological sense. For one thing, it would vary across a fairly wide range depending on various factors ranging from climate to gender to race to nutrition to prices to wealth to…well, the factors are numerous. It would also be a function of time. Occasionally, classical economists like David Ricardo and Karl Marx would broach the issue, but they never answered any of the basic questions; they just assumed them away in the time-honored manner of economists everywhere. For them, any concept of a living wage was pure theoretical or algebraic, not concrete or numerical. Today, for the left wing, the living wage is purely a polemical concept with zero concreteness. It is merely a club to beat the right wing with. It is without real-world significance or content.

Given this, it is madness to allow your debate opponent the use of this club. Take the club away from him and use it against him.

Bill Moyers: “Wal Mart, which earned $17 billion in profit last year…”

Arthur Brooks: [gives no sign of noticing or caring].

WHAT ARTHUR BROOKS SHOULD HAVE SAID: “You just said that Wal Mart earned $17 billion in profit last year. You did say that, didn’t you – I don’t want to be accused of misquoting you. Does that seem like a lot of money to you? [He will respond affirmatively.] Why? Is it a record of some kind? Did somebody tell you it was a lot of money? Or does it just sort of sound like a lot? I’m asking this because you seem to think that sum of money has a lot of significance, as though it were a crime, or a sin, or special in some way. You seem to think it justifies special notice on your part. You seem to think it justifies your demanding that Wal Mart pay higher wages to their workers than they’re doing now. And my question is: WHY? Unless my ears deceive me, you seem to be making these claims on the basis of the PURE SIZE of the amount. You think Wal Mart should “give” some of this money to its low-skilled workers – is that right? [He will agree enthusiastically.]

OK then. Here’s what I think: WHY DON’T YOU, MR. MOYERS? [He will pretend not to understand.] I MEAN EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. WHY DON’T YOU DO IT, MR. MOYERS, IF THAT’S WHAT YOU BELIEVE? [He will smile or laugh: “Because I’m not Wal Mart, that’s why.] BUT YOU ARE, MR. MOYERS. OR YOU CAN BE. ANYBODY CAN BE. FOR THAT MATTER, THOSE WAL-MART WORKERS WHOSE WELFARE YOU CLAIM TO CARE FOR SO MUCH CAN BE, TOO. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS BUY WAL-MART STOCK. IT TRADES PUBLICLY, YOU KNOW.

IF YOU THINK WAL- MART SHOULD GIVE ITS MONEY AWAY, THEN BUY WAL-MART STOCK, TAKE THE IVIDENDS YOU PAY YOU AND GIVE THE MONEY AWAY TO WHEREEVER YOU THINK IT SHOULD GO. AFTER ALL, ONCE YOU BUY WAL MART STOCK…NOW YOU’RE WAL-MART. YOU OWN THE COMPANY. AT LEAST, YOU OWN A FRACTION OF IT, JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER OWNERS OF WAL-MART DO. YOU WANT WAL MART TO GIVE ITS PROFITS AWAY? OK, GIVE THEM AWAY YOURSELF. WHY SHOLD THE GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN BUREAUCRATIC OVERHEAD IN ACCOMPLISHING SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH CHEAP FOR THE COST OF A DISCOUNT BROKERAGE COMMISSION?

And you can deduct it from your income tax as a charitable contribution…MR. MOYERS.

As far as that’s concerned, as a matter of logic, if Wal-Mart’s workers really agree with you that Wal-Mart is scrooging away in profits the money that should go to them in wages, then the workers could do the same thing, couldn’t they? They could buy Wal-Mart’s stock and earn that share of the profit that you want the company to give them. It’s no good claiming they don’t have the money to do it because they’d not only be getting a share of these profits you say are so fabulous, they’d also be owning the company that you’re claiming is such a super profit machine that it’s got profits to burn – or give away. If what you say is really true, you should be screaming at Wal-Mart’s workers to buy shares instead of wasting time trying to get the government to take money away from Wal-Mart so some of it can trickle down to the workers.

Of course, that’s the catch. I don’t even know if YOU YOURSELF BELIEVE THE BALONEY YOU’VE BEEN SPREADING AROUND IN THIS INTERVIEW. I don’t think you even know the truth about all three of those companies that you claim are so flush with profits. To varying degrees, they’re actually in trouble, MR. MOYERS. It’s all in the financial press, MR MOYERS – which you apparently haven’t read and don’t care to read. McDonald’s has had to reinvent itself to recover its sales. Wal-Mart is floundering. Target has lost touch with its core customers. And the $17 billion that seems like so much profit to you doesn’t constitute such a great rate of return when you spread it over the hundreds of thousands of individual Wal Mart shareholders – as you’re about to find out when you take my advice to put your money where you great big mouth is – MR. MOYERS.

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO SAY THIS: The mainstream press has been minting headlines out of absolute corporate profits for decades. The most prominent victim of this has been the oil companies because they have been the biggest private companies in the world. Any competent economist knows that it is the rate of return that reveals true profitability, not the absolute size of profits. Incredibly, this fact has not permeated to the public consciousness despite the popularity of 401k retirement-investment accounts.

Buying Wal-Mart stock is just another way of implementing the “put your money where your mouth is” strategy discussed earlier. If Bill Moyers’ view of the company were correct – which it isn’t, of course – it would make much more sense than redistributing money via other forms of government coercion.

The Goal of Debate

If you play poker and nobody ever calls your bluff, it will pay you to bluff on the slightest excuse. In debate, you have to call your debate opponent’s bluffs; otherwise, you will be bluffed down to your underwear even when your opponent isn’t holding any cards. Arthur Brooks was just as conservative in his debating style as in his ideology – he refused to call even Moyers’ most ridiculous bluffs. This guaranteed that the best outcome he could hope for was a draw even if his performance was otherwise flawless. It wasn’t, so he came off poorly.

Of course, he was never going to “win” the debate in the sense of persuading hard-core leftists to convert to a right-wing position. His job was to leave them shaken and uncomfortable by denying Bill Moyers the ease and comfort of taking his usual polemical stances without fear of challenge or rebuttal. This would have delighted the few right-wingers tuned in and put the left on notice that they were going to be bloodied when they tried their customary tactics in the future. In order to accomplish this, it was necessary to do two things. First, take the battle to Bill Moyers on his own level by forcing him to take his own advice, figuratively speaking. Second, clearly indicate by your contemptuous manner that you do not respect him and are not treating him as an intellectual equal and an honest broker of ideas. People react not only to what you say but to how you say it. If you respect your opponent, they will sense it and accord him that same respect. If you despise him, this will come through – as it should in this case. That is just as important as the intellectual part of the debate.

In a life-and-death struggle with cannibals, not getting eaten alive can pass for victory.

DRI-276 for week of 3-10-13: Understanding Motivation in the Nutritional Regulation Debate

An Access Advertising EconBrief:

Understanding Motivation in the Nutritional Regulation Debate

What is the rationale for government to intervene in our lives – that is, to insert itself between us and the objects of our actions? It is either to prevent something bad from happening or to bring about something good that would otherwise not occur.

This would appear to be an obvious answer to a straightforward question. Yet by this simple standard recent declarations on nutrition by American authorities and government officials seem utterly incoherent.

To make any sense of their comments, we must ask ourselves: Who are they really talking to? What are their real motives, as opposed to their stated or apparent ones? And what is their underlying agenda?

That is where our understanding of economics comes in handy.

The First Lady’s “Business Case for Healthier Food Options”

In a widely publicized Wall Street Journal op-ed (2/28/2013), First Lady Michelle Obama made what she called “the business case for healthier food options.” Ms. Obama has seized upon the so-called “epidemic” of childhood obesity as her personal cause célèbre, much as Nancy Reagan urged kids to “just say no” to recreational drugs. “For years,” she recounts, the problem was viewed as “insurmountable” because “healthy food simply didn’t sell – the demand wasn’t there and higher profits were found elsewhere.”

No longer. “Today we are proving the conventional wisdom wrong… American companies are achieving greater and greater success by creating and selling healthy products.” Now, it seems, “what’s good for kids and good for family budgets can also be good for business.”

A herald of the dawn of a new age had better be able to point to sunlight on the horizon. Ms. Obama cites the example of Wal Mart, which has “cut the costs to its consumers of fruits and vegetables by $2.3 billion and reduced the amount of sugar in its products by 10%. It has also “launched a labeling program that helps customers spot healthy items on the shelf.” Sales of these products have increased.

Disney has “eliminate[d] ads for junk foods from its children’s programming and improve[d] the food served in [its] theme parks.” Walgreens is adding fruits and vegetables to (selected) stores. Restaurants “are cutting calories, fat and sodium from menus and offering healthier kids’ meals.”

The First Lady refers to an opinion-survey finding that “82% of consumers feel that it’s important for companies to offer healthy products that fit family budgets.” She cites a Hudson Institute study that finds over 70% of sales growth in consumer-packaged goods comes from “healthier foods.” Moreover, in recent years the Institute found a direct correlation between percentage of healthy food sold and rate of return.

Ms. Obama closes her piece on a ringing note of patriotic boilerplate. American businesses are at last heeding the call to arms – they are “stepping up to invest in building a healthier future for our kids.” The bandwagon is rolling like an avalanche down a mountain and everybody is hopping aboard. Teachers, mayors, faith leaders, parents, leaders from every sector – why, even “Republicans and Democrats are working together in Congress” to improve school lunches, for goodness sake!

In Mississippi, obesity rates have fallen by 13% at the elementary-school level. Childhood obesity has fallen measurably in California and in cities like New York City and Philadelphia. Of course, we have “a long way to go” since “the problem is nowhere near being solved,” but she “has never been more optimistic.”

Fact Check: Mirabile Dictu, Ms. Obama Seems Factually and Substantively Accurate

It is never safe to take politicians at their word. Ms. Obama does not hold elective office, but First Ladies have long been as politically saturated as their husbands. Thus a fact check of Ms. Obama’s contentions is in order.

Lo and behold, there are indications that not only the sum but the substance of her remarks is accurate. Quoting from the HealthDay newswire earlier last month (2/7/2013): “A leaner menu may lead to a fatter wallet for those involved in the restaurant industry, research suggests.” The Raymond Johnson Foundation surveyed 21 of the nation’s largest restaurant chains for a 5-year (2006-11) period. According to an analyst from the Hudson Institute, “those [businesses] that increased the amount of low-calorie options they served had greater increases in customer traffic and stronger gains in total servings than those that didn’t.”

The researchers developed their own categories for “low-calorie” servings of main courses, side dishes, desserts and drinks. During the survey period, new items that met the low-calorie criteria outperformed others in 17 of the 21 participating chains. The servings classified as low-calorie increased their percentage of total sales in all 21 chains.

Among the chains surveyed were McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Burger King, Taco Bell, Applebee’s, Olive Garden, Chili’s and Outback Steakhouse. Not surprisingly, the chains included in the study comprised 49% of the total revenue in the top 100 U.S. restaurant chains, or some $102 billion in annual sales.

Meanwhile, Back at the Regulatory Ranch…

A few days earlier (2/1/2013), the HealthDay newswire carried this story: “FDA Should Work to Cut Sugar Levels in Sodas, Experts Say.” The subheading was: “Petition by leading consumer-advocate group and academics urges artificial sweeteners be used instead.”

The “leading consumer-advocate group” was none other than the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), the left-wing group that can with justification be characterized as the nation’s leading scientific-scare-mongering activist organization. Draping the organization in the mantle of “nutrition experts and health agencies from a number of U.S. cities,” Director Michael Jacobson announced a petition urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to set a “safe level” for high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and other sugars used to sweeten sodas and other drinks.

The petition claimed that 14 million Americans get over 1/3 of their daily calories from added sugars like these. They “are causing serious problems – obesity, diabetes and heart disease, among others,” according to Jacobson. But Jacobson’s statement accompanying the petition dialed down the relationship from causation to correlation, pointing out the “great deal of evidence linking sugar to [these] problems,” from which CSPI is now “concluding that much of the evidence centers on HFCS.”

Having first donned his scientist hat, Jacobson then doffed it for his lawyer hat by declaring that the FDA is legally obligated to act by – in effect – treating sugar as a toxic substance. Since the First Law of toxicology is “the dose makes the poison,” the FDA must determine the safe level of consumption for HFCS and other sugars in drinks. Then it should set “voluntary sugar targets” for manufacturers of other foods. Finally, Jacobson completes his expert-witness hat trick by posing as an expert on education. The FDA should “educate consumers” about the dangers of sugar, he concludes.

Just what, exactly, should manufacturers of America’s most popular drinks use to sweeten their products – assuming that they are permitted to go on producing them at all? “Artificial sweeteners” is CSPI’s papal verdict. Ironically, their blessing is exquisitely timed to coincide with a barrage of publicity suggesting that aspartame and alternative sweeteners are linked to diabetes and other adverse health outcomes. Yet here, Jacobson is mysteriously complacent. “The FDA considers all these sweeteners perfectly safe. We think the certain harm [from HFCS and sugars] greatly outweighs the speculative risk from artificial sweeteners.”

Jacobson’s position conclusively establishes CSPI as an irony-free zone. Two decades ago, CSPI waged a vocal public campaign to gain regulatory approval for Trans fats as the

“healthy alternative” to saturated fats in the American diet. Today, of course, Trans fats are so firmly fixed in the bad graces of regulators that food manufacturers take care to note their absence on ingredient lists whenever possible.

The Economics of the Current Nutrition Debate

It is no accident, as old-time Marxists were fond of saying, that economics is routinely omitted from the public debate about nutrition and regulation. (Indeed, Michael Jacobson went so far as to demand that “economic issues shouldn’t figure in this” at all.) Economic logic reveals that – even when the principals make statements that are factually accurate – their underlying logic is completely awry and their motives have no relationship to their public utterances.

First, consider Michelle Obama’s “business case” for “healthy foods.” To whom is she speaking? And why? After all, her remarks appear in the Bible of American business, The Wall Street Journal. On their face, they appear to be addressed to food manufacturers in an effort to persuade them to produce more “healthy foods.”

And this is completely crazy, is it not? After all, the livelihoods and happiness of food manufacturers depend on their producing foods that people like and want to buy. Their sales and profits provide a clear-cut index of consumer wants. Their gaze is fixed on sales 24/7. This truism can hardly be news to left-wing commentators like the Obama’s, since half the time the Left is criticizing business for producing the wrong things and the other half the Left excoriates business for its maniacal pursuit of profit and inordinate success in attaining it. If there is one thing business does not need to be reminded to do, it is to produce more goods that consumers want in order to earn higher profits.

Ms. Obama spends a thousand words in the Journal telling American business that healthy foods are now profitable. Does she really believe this was unknown to them before she spilled the beans in print? When these foods are the sales leaders for 17 of 21 leading restaurant chains over the last five reporting years? Who is she kidding?

No. Even the First Lady cannot be this obtuse. She cannot believe that food manufacturers are utterly ignorant of their own business, nor can she expect them to take her advice on how to run their business. They are the experts on the food business. Even if they needed advice, they would never solicit hers. She has openly disdained business; advising young people to forego careers in the business world.

No, Ms. Obama’s motive is not what it seems to be. She has another agenda.

The same thing is true of Michael Jacobson. In response to CSPI’s petition, the American Beverage Association released a statement pointing to the elephant in the room alongside CSPI and the self-appointed nutrition “experts.” 45% of all non-alcoholic beverages consumed in the U.S. today have zero calories. Average calories per beverage serving are down 23% since 1998. Calories from sugar in beverages are down 37% since 2000. In other words, the free market has beaten CSPI and its small army of would-be regulators to the punch.

If the FDA had set voluntary guidelines in 1998 for a changeover to artificial sweeteners, it would today hail the current state of the market as a great victory for regulation. (And then it would demand an increase in its budget on the grounds that much, so very much, remained to do in order to usher in soft-drink nirvana for American consumers.) But because our current status was achieved by free markets, without regulatory carrots or sticks, a crisis exists for the regulatory Left.

The obesity “epidemic” is not a crisis for the Left because it threatens the health of Americans. It is a crisis because it represents a wasting opportunity. Onetime Obama advisor Rahm Emmanuel gained fame by coining the slogan “Never let a crisis go to waste.” His point was that every crisis is a potential opportunity to expand the scope and power of the federal government. A political administration should seize that opportunity by creating more federal agencies, spending more money and enacting more regulations. Failure to do so sacrifices power – and power is all that matters in politics.

The history of the obesity and diabetes “epidemics” reveals why the Left is now sweating bullets on the issue of nutritional regulation.

The Real Cure for the Obesity “Epidemic” – and the Scramble to Get Back in Front of the V

Ms. Obama’s op-ed was not only right about the growing popularity of so-called healthy eating. She was also right about its previous lack of appeal to consumers. For many years, the Left hectored food producers to produce what consumers ought to eat instead of what they wanted to eat. And for years, consumers voted for tasty food over what the experts told them they ought to want.

The Left reacted to this by blaming the victim. Academics and public-health officials insisted that consumers were sluggards who refused to eat right and shunned exercise. In reality, consumers were only following the revised nutrition guidelines that advised them to make carbohydrates the chief source of energy and eschew fat in general and meat in particular. Weight loss was a mechanical process in which calories expended in energy exceeded those ingested in food. Counting calories was the necessary centerpiece of this process.

Food manufacturers did not refuse to produce low-calorie foods. But fat not only produces flavor in food, it also makes it filling – thus producing satiety. Food manufacturers discovered that cutting back on fat made foods tasteless and left consumers feeling hungry. They learned that by adding carbohydrates in the form of sugars, they could replace the taste with only a moderate increase in calories. (Simple carbohydrates are not calorie-dense.)

The problem with this program is that it did not work. Consumers would buy foods that replaced fat with simply carbohydrates but these did not promote weight loss. In this regard, it is vital to appreciate the difference between expertise in the marketplace – as represented by food manufacturers – and in academia. Food manufacturers are experts because they have to be. If they fail, they go out of business and are experts no longer. But academic experts on nutrition and weight loss did not actually have to aid customers in losing weight or reaching optimal nutrition. They only had to surmount the hurdle of peer review. Consequently, they were able to mislead two generations of consumers.

The damage wasn’t limited to obesity. The emphasis on carbohydrates also caused a ghastly upward spike in the incidence of late-onset, Type II diabetes. While the rush of insulin generated by the ingestion of carbohydrates was sufficient to prevent diabetic shock and coma, it did not prevent the damage caused by frequent, repetitive upward spikes in blood sugar. Because the insulin eventually returned blood sugar to normal and because standard medical practice has been to check blood glucose after a period of fasting, these spikes and the accompanying damage went undetected for many years. Eventually, the baby-boom generation began to suffer peripheral neuropathy and other symptoms of nerve damage resulting from Type II diabetes. The influx of television commercials offering treatments for this condition is an index of its prevalence.

It took a doctor on the fringes of scientific respectability named Robert Atkins to explain that the culprit in weight gain was not fat consumption per se. Instead, carbohydrates were at fault. When consumed undiluted, carbohydrates entered the bloodstream quickly and caused the body to release insulin to counteract the resulting upward spike in blood sugar. The insulin caused the body to store fat in the body’s cells rather than burning it as energy.

The key to weight loss was to make protein, rather than carbohydrates, the body’s leading energy source. Carbohydrates should be consumed only when their release into the bloodstream could be slowed by simultaneous consumption of fiber (as with whole apples), fat (as with butter), protein (as with meat) or acid (as with sourdough bread). Meat consumption is not problematic for weight gain or cholesterol accumulation because the body burns fat for energy.

The observed trend toward healthy eating is largely this revolution in blood sugar regulation, which modifies the original Atkins insight with a more precise scientific rationale developed by cardiologists like Arthur Agatston. The difficulty in finding unsweetened iced tea on store shelves – Rush Limbaugh was forced to add an unsweetened option to his lineup of sweet teas – is one indication of the power of this approach. The sudden ubiquity of broccoli, once the butt of standup comedy routines, is another. (Broccoli is high in fiber as well as phytonutrients.) The French fry was a mainstay of the 20th century American diet, but it now shares menu space with sweet-potato fries because sweet potatoes do not share the glycemic (blood-sugar related) drawbacks of white potatoes.

This is the healthy eating referred to by Ms. Obama and the Robert Johnson Foundation study. It endures where its predecessors failed because it works. People actually lose weight without having to count calories. They eat until they are full, so do not feel deprived and find it easy to put up with the loss of starches and desserts.

This approach was developed by the free marketplace, over the hysterical objections of the academic and regulatory nutrition authorities. The establishment labeled the Atkins diet dangerous and predicted it would kill its adherents. Instead, the descendants of Atkins’ program are killing off the nutritional competition. And this puts the Left wing in an untenable position today.

The late Nobel-prizewinning economist Milton Friedman compared political leaders to the leader in a V-formation of ducks. Every once in a while, Friedman said, the leader would look back and notice that he was flying alone. The ducks had deserted him, flying off in another direction. The leader was forced to scramble after them in order to get back in front of the V and resume his leadership position. In this case, the public realized that the government’s nutrition leadership was wrongheaded and disastrous. They left formation and flew off in pursuit of an approach that worked – the principles pioneered by Atkins and refined by newer, more scientific approaches like the SouthBeach diet.

Now the Left is scrambling to get back in front of the V. She knows that she needs to hurry. Ms. Obama doesn’t just want children to stop getting fat. She wants to be able to claim the credit for that result.

As it stands now, she can hardly claim credit for trends that began well before she even became First Lady. Her only hope is to associate herself in the public’s mind with the business trend away from the failed Establishment diet. That is why she chose the Wall Street Journal as the venue for her piece, because of its association with business. She knows her public will not actually read the op-ed. That is good; she wants them to hear about it through the filter of the mainstream media, which will spin its content in ways favorable to her. Her constituency will believe anything bad about business, so she will be seen as telling business what is good for them and for the public. And when the Administration eventually proposes rules telling food producers what they can and can’t produce and how to produce its output, she can then be seen as benign – somebody who is merely helping business to do what is good for it as well as everybody else. And she can claim credit for outcomes attained before those rules ever went into place. The public will have forgotten, if it ever knew, the real story.

Michael Jacobson’s back is against the wall because the blood-sugar revolution is threatening to abort the CSPI’s cherished goal of federal regulation of the American diet. If free markets are allowed to cure the obesity “epidemic” unaided by FDA regulation, it will dawn on the public that the FDA is the equivalent of Edmund Rostand’s character “Chantecler” in the eponymous allegorical play. Chantecler was a rooster who lived his life convinced that his own crowing was responsible for the rising of the sun at dawn, only to suffer cruel disillusionment after a bout with laryngitis.

Jacobson is desperate to achieve FDA regulation in time to claim credit for lobbying in its favor. He, too, is scrambling to get back in front of the V. If the free-market stampede away from sugar and carbohydrates goes on, soon he will not be able to claim the existence of a crisis as grounds for an FDA takeover of American nutrition. CSPI’s raison d’être will be exposed as intellectual pretense.

Jacobson cannot appeal to consumers directly because they are not about to accept his self-appointed expertise as a substitute for their own. After all, they are the experts on their own bodies, their own tastes and preferences – not Michael Jacobson and CSPI. He wants his views enacted as regulatory law because consumers won’t be able to veto their adoption and will then be stuck with them, like it or not.

How (Not) to Cure Social Problems

The most striking aspect of the nutritional debate is its utter clarity when explained as above. So-called “epidemics” of obesity and diabetes were caused by failures of regulation and academic expertise. They are now being eradicated by the free market. As the lawyers say, these facts are not in dispute. Ms. Obama herself is at pains to establish them, although she does not say so in these words.

The Left only wants nutritional regulation for reasons of naked opportunism. There is no case for regulation to prevent obesity and diabetes because it is too late for that. There is no case for regulation to cure them because that is already happening, to whatever extent possible. There is no case for regulation to prevent future incidence because the free market’s program for prevention is already well under way.

Of course, one could always argue that the free market is taking too long to do its work. The contention that markets work slowly while regulatory government works quickly and expeditiously seems grotesque on its face, which is probably why we don’t hear it advanced by Ms. Obama or Jacobson. Of course, we will continue to be browbeaten with news reports about obesity and diabetes. It takes time for blood-sugar levels to normalize. Nerve damage caused by diabetes, even the Type II kind, is probably irreversible.

But truth is like a cat. Once it escapes confinement, it is hard to get back in the sack.